LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF 
CALIFORNIA 
SAN  DIEGO 


SOCIALISM 


A  SUMMARY  AND    INTERPRETATION  OF 
SOCIALIST  PRINCIPLES 


SOCIALISM 


A  SUMMARY  AND   INTERPRETATION  OF 
SOCIALIST  PRINCIPLES 


BY 


JOHN   SPARGO 


AUTHOR  OF  "THE  BITTER  CRT  OF  THE  CHILDREN, 

"  THE  SOCIALISTS,  WHO  THEY  ARE  AND 

WHAT  THEY  STAND  FOR,"  ETC. 


Nrfn  If  orfe 
THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

LONDON:  MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LTD. 
1906 

All  rights  reserved 


COPYRIGHT,  1906, 
BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.    Published  June,  1906. 


NortoonB  $reas 

J.  S.  Gushing  &  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 
Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


GEORGE   D.    HERRON 

"  With  two  forms  and  with  two  figures, 
but  with  one  soul,  thou  and  I" 

JALALU-DDIN  Rum 


PREFACE 

Is  an  apology  needed  for  adding  to  the  number 
of  books  devoted  to  the  exposition  of  modern  So- 
cialism? I  hardly  think  so.  If  the  reader  will 
carefully  examine  the  bibliographies,  he  will  find 
that,  with  the  exception  of  those  books  issued 
directly  through  the  established  agencies  of  the 
Socialist  propaganda,  there  is  hardly  a  single  book 
devoted  to  the  exposition  of  Socialism,  wholly  affirma- 
tive in  tone  and  written  frankly  from  the  standpoint 
of  a  convinced  Socialist.  Hence,  almost  all  the 
books  on  the  subject  issued  through  the  ordinary 
channels  are  apologetic  and  lacking  in  conviction. 
Not  only  so,  but  they  are  generally  unsatisfactory 
to  the  Socialist  for  the  additional  reason  that  their 
authors  have  failed  to  understand  the  spiritual, 
dynamic  forces  of  the  modern  Socialist  movement. 

This  little  volume  is  wholly  unpretentious  in  its 
aim.  Its  purpose  is  to  state  in  popular  language 
what  Socialism  really  means  and  what  it  does  not 
mean.  It  is  intended  to  be  an  introduction  merely 
to  a  great  and  profoundly  impressive  subject  of 
growing  international  interest  and  importance.  Dur- 
ing many  years  spent  in  the  propaganda  of  Socialism 

vii 


Vlll  PREFACE 

in  two  continents,  the  need  of  such  a  volume  has 
been  deeply  impressed  upon  my  mind;  hence  this 
attempt  to  meet  the  necessity. 

During  twelve  years  spent  in  the  earnest  propa- 
ganda of  Socialism  by  voice  and  pen,  particularly 
as  a  lecturer  to  all  classes  of  audiences  in  various 
lands,  I  have  had  exceptional  opportunities  for  know- 
ing the  nature  of  the  difficulties  which  most  serious- 
minded,  intelligent  men  and  women  encounter  when 
they  begin  to  consider  Socialism.  I  have  felt  it 
incumbent  upon  me  to  face  these  difficulties  with 
the  utmost  frankness  and  sincerity,  and  I  have 
written  this  little  volume  in  that  spirit.  I  have 
tried  to  be  as  frank  with  the  reader  as  I  am  with 
my  own  soul,  realizing  that 

"Men  in  earnest  have  no  time  to  waste 
Patching  fig  leaves  for  the  naked  truth." 

The  method  of  treating  the  subject,  somewhat 
different  from  the  methods  commonly  employed  by 
Socialist  writers,  is  a  result  of  that  same  fund  of 
experience.  I  have  adopted  the  method  of  presenta- 
tion which  I  have  found  to  be  most  effective  in  my 
work  as  a  lecturer.  If  the  critical  reader  finds 
portions  of  the  book  somewhat  discursive,  owing  to 
the  weaving-in  of  much  biographical  matter  relating 
to  Owen,  Marx,  and  others,  I  venture  to  hope  that 
the  gain  in  human  interest  will  atone  for  an  other- 
wise inexcusable  failing.  Be  that  how  it  may,  I 


PREFACE  IX 

purposely  chose  to  write  in  the  spirit  of  frank  and 
earnest  conversation,  as  friend  to  friend,  rather  than 
in  the  spirit  and  language  of  academic  thought. 

While  in  the  main  I  believe  that  this  statement 
of  their  principles  will  be  acceptable  to  the  vast 
majority  of  Socialists,  in  this  country  and  abroad, 
it  is  only  fair  that  I  should  warn  the  reader  against 
holding  the  Socialist  movement  in  general,  and  the 
Socialist  party  in  particular,  responsible  for  my 
personal  views.  Throughout  the  text  I  have  tried 
to  preserve  a  clear  distinction  between  those  views 
which  are  universally  accepted  by  Socialists  and 
those  which  are  largely  personal.  In  the  chapter 
entitled  Outlines  of  the  Socialist  State,  I  have  tried 
to  lay  down  certain  fundamental  principles  which, 
it  seems  to  me,  must  characterize  the  Socialist  regime 
and  which  are  involved  in  modern  Socialism.  I 
believe  that,  in  the  main,  these  principles  will  be 
accepted  by  the  vast  majority  of  my  fellow-Socialists 
throughout  the  world,  and  that  they  will  welcome 
most  of  all  the  effort  made  to  show  that  the  Socialist 
regime  involves  no  rule  by  a  great  bureaucracy,  no 
crushing  out  of  individual  liberties,  none  of  that 
repression  of  genius  which  Herbert  Spencer  and 
others,  down  to  the  crude  romancer  of  The  Scarlet 
Empire,  have  imagined  and  decried.  At  the  same 
time,  I  must  accept  personal  responsibility  for  the 
attempt  made  in  this  chapter  to  state  Socialism  con- 
structively without  Utopian  romanticism. 


X  PREFACE 

If  this  little  book  leads  to  a  juster  view  of  Social- 
ism and  the  Socialist  movement ;  if  it  succeeds  in 
inducing  men  and  women  to  study  the  subject  with 
calm  reason;  if,  finally,  it  results  in  enlightening 
the  opponents  of  Socialism  so  that  they  abandon 
their  quixotic  tasks  of  tilting  at  windmills,  attacking 
a  Socialism  which  has  no  existence  outside  of  their 
imaginations,  to  devote  their  efforts  to  serious  and 
candid  discussion  of  the  issues  involved,  I  shall  be 
amply  repaid  for  the  labor  of  writing  it. 

JOHN  SPARGO. 
PROSPECT  HOUSE,  YONKBBS,  N.Y., 
May,  1906. 


CONTENTS 


PREFACE vii 

CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 

Changed  attitude  of  the  public  mind  toward  Socialism  — 
Growth  of  the  movement  responsible  for  the  change  — 
Unanimity  of  friends  and  foes  concerning  the  future 
triumph  of  Socialism  —  Herbert  Spencer's  belief  and  its 
awful  pessimism  —  Study  of  Socialism  a  civic  duty — No- 
bility of  the  word  "Socialism"  —  Its  first  use  —  Confu- 
sion arising  from  its  indiscriminate  use — "Socialism" 
and  "Communism"  in  the  Communist  Manifesto  —  Un- 
fair tactics  of  opponents  —  Engels  on  the  significance  of 
the  word  in  1847  —  Its  present  significance  .  .  .  1-13 

CHAPTER  II 
ROBERT  OWEN  AND  THE  UTOPIAN  SPIRIT 

Utopian  Socialism  and  Robert  Owen  —  Estimates  of  Owen  by 
Liebknecht  and  Engels  —  His  early  life  —  Becomes  a 
manufacturer  —  The  industrial  revolution  in  England  — 
Misery  caused  by  the  introduction  of  machinery  —  "  Lud- 
dite"  riots  against  machinery  —  Early  revolts  against 
machinery  —  Marx's  views  —  Owen  as  manufacturer  — 
As  social  reformer  —  The  New  Lanark  experiment  —  He 
becomes  a  Socialist  —  Failure  of  his  communistic  colonies 
—  Owen  compared  with  Saint-Simon  and  Fourier  .  14-45 
xi 


XU  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  "COMMUNIST  MANIFESTO"  AND  THE  UTOPIAN  SPIRIT 

PAGE 

The  Communist  Manifesto  —  Conditions  in  1848  when  it  was 
written  —  Communism  of  the  working  class  —  Weitling 
and  Cabet  —  Marx  and  Engels  —  The  Manifesto  as  the 
first  international  declaration  of  a  working-class  move- 
ment —  Literary  merit  of  the  Manifesto  —  Its  fundamental 
proposition  stated  by  Engels  —  Socialism  becomes  a  sci- 
ence—  The  authorship  of  the  Manifesto  —  Engels' testi- 
mony    46-63 

CHAPTER  IV 
THE  MATERIALISTIC  CONCEPTION  OF  HISTORY 

Socialism  a  theory  of  social  evolution  —  Not  economic  fatalism 

—  Leibnitz  and  the  savage  —  Ideas  and  progress  —  Value 
of  the  materialistic  conception  of  history  —  Foreshadow- 
ings  of  the  theory —  What  is  meant  by  the  term  "  mate- 
rialistic conception"  —  Results  of  overemphasis  :  Engels' 
confession  —  Limits  of  the  theory  —  The  doctrine  of  free 
will  —  Darwin  and  Marx  —  Application  of  the  theory, 
specific  and  general  —  Columbus  and  the  discovery  of 
America — General  view  of  historical  progress — Antiquity 
of  communism  —  Cooperation  and  competition  —  Slavery 

—  Serfdom  —  Class  struggles  —  The  rise  of  capitalism  and 

the  wage-labor  system 64-96 

CHAPTER  V 
CAPITALISM  AND  THE  LAW  OF  CONCENTRATION 

A  new  form  of  class  division  arises  in  the  first  stage  of  capital- 
ism—  The  second  stage  of  capitalism  begins  with  the 
great  mechanical  inventions  —  The  development  of  for- 
eign and  colonial  trade  —  Theoretic  individualism  and 
practical  collectivism  —  The  law  of  capitalist  concentra- 
tion formulated  by  Marx  —  Competition,  monopoly, 


CONTENTS  Xlll 

PAGE 

socialization  —  Trustification,  interindustrial  and  inter- 
national —  Criticisms  of  the  Marxian  theory  —  The  small 
producers  and  traders  —  Concentration  in  agriculture  — 
Failure  of  the  bonanza  farms — Other  modes  of  concen- 
tration—  Farm  ownership  and  farm  mortgages  —  The 
factory  and  the  farm  —  The  concentration  of  wealth  — 
European  statistics  —  Dr.  Spahr's  estimate  of  the  distribu- 
tion of  wealth  in  the  United  States  —  General  summary  97-122 

CHAPTER  VI 
THE  CLASS  STRUGGLE 

Opposition  to  the  doctrine  —  Misrepresentations  by  the  oppo- 
nents of  Socialism  —  Socialists  not  the  creators  of  the 
class  struggle  —  Antiquity  of  class  struggles  —  The  theory 
as  stated  in  the  Communist  Manifesto  —  Fundamental 
propositions  in  the  statement  —  Slavery  the  first  system 
of  class  division  in  history  —  Class  divisions  in  feudalism 
—  Rise  of  the  capitalist  class  and  its  triumph  —  Main 
class  divisions  of  capitalist  society  —  Inherent  antagonism 
of  interests  between  employer  and  employee  —  Common- 
ality of  general  interests  and  antagonism  of  special  class 
interests  —  Individuals  versus  classes  —  Vague  and  vacil- 
lating interests  of  the  middle  class  —  Class  interests  as 
they  affect  thoughts,  opinions,  and  beliefs  —  Varying 
ethical  standards  of  economic  classes  —  Denials  of  class 
divisions  in  America  to-day  —  Our  "  untitled  nobility  "  — 
Class  divisions  real  though  not  legally  established  —  They 
tend  to  become  fixed  and  hereditary  —  Consciousness  of 
class  divisions  new  in  America  —  Transition  from  class 
to  class  becoming  increasingly  difficult  —  No  hatred  of 
individuals  involved  in  the  theory  —  Socialism  versus 
Anarchism  —  The  labor  struggle  in  the  United  States — 
Organized  labor  and  organized  capital  —  Not  due  to  mis- 
understandings, but  to  antagonism  of  interests  —  The 
reason  for  trades  unionism — Trades  union  methods  — 
Limitations  of  trades  union  powers  —  Government  and  the 
workers  —  The  call  for  the  political  organization  of  the 


XIV  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

workers  —  Anti-labor  laws — Capitalistic  use  of  police 
and  military  —  Judicial  injunctions  —  "  Taff  Vale  law" 
— Political  rising  of  the  workers  in  England  —  Triumph 
of  the  workers  will  end  class  rule  and  liberate  all  man- 
kind .  123-160 


CHAPTEE  VII 
EARL  MARX  AND  THE  ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM 

First  comprehensive  statement  of  the  materialistic  conception 
of  history  by  Marx  —  La  Misere  de  la  Philosophie,  a 
critique  of  Proudhon  —  Marx's  first  essay  in  economic 
science  —  His  frank  recognition  of  the  Ricardians  —  Marx 
in  England  becomes  familiar  with  the  Ricardians  from 
whom  he  is  accused  of  "  pillaging  "  his  ideas  —  Criticisms 
of  Menger  and  others  —  Marx  expelled  from  Germany 
and  France  —  His  removal  to  London  —  His  struggle  with 
poverty  —  Domestic  relations  —  Capital  an  English  work 
in  all  essentials  —  The  Ricardians  and  their  precursors  — 
Superior  method  and  insight  of  Marx  —  The  sociological 
viewpoint  in  economics — "Scientific  Socialism,"  criti- 
cisms of  the  term  —  Its  justification  /  161-181 

CHAPTER  vrn 

OUTLINES  OP  THE  ECONOMICS  OP  SOCIALISM 

The  sociological  principle  pervades  all  the  work  of  Marx  — 
Commodities  defined  —  Use  values  and  economic  values 
—  Exchange  of  commodities  through  the  medium  of 
money  —  The  labor  theory  of  value  in  its  crude  form  — 
Some  notable  statements  by  the  classic  economists  — 
Marx  and  Benjamin  Franklin  —  Scientific  development  of 
the  labor  theory  of  value  by  Marx  —  Price  and  value  — 
Money  as  a  price-expression  and  as  a  commodity  —  The 
theory  of  supply  and  demand  as  determinants  of  value  — 
The  "Austrian"  theory  of  final  utility  as  the  determi- 
nant of  value  —  English  origin  of  the  theory  —  Its  identity 


CONTENTS  XV 

PAGE 

with  the  supply  and  demand  theory  —  Labor-power  as  a 
commodity  —  Wages,  its  price,  determined  as  the  prices 
of  all  other  commodities  are  —  Wherein  labor-power 
differs  from  all  other  commodities  —  The  law  of  surplus 
value  —  Why  Marx  used  the  term  "Surplus  Value"  — 
The  theory  stated  —  The  division  of  surplus  value  — 
Other  theories  of  the  source  of  capitalist  income  — 
Wherein  they  fail  to  solve  the  problem  —  Fundamental 
importance  of  the  Marxian  doctrine  to  the  Socialist  move- 
ment    182-210 

CHAPTER  IX 

OUTLINES  OF  THE  SOCIALIST  STATE 

Detailed  specifications  of  the  Socialist  regime  impossible  — 
Principles  which  must  characterize  it  —  Man's  egoism 
and  sociability  —  Duality  of  motives  and  social  progress 

—  The  idea  of  the  Socialist  state  as  a  huge  bureaucracy 

—  Mr.  Anstey's  picture  and  Herbert  Spencer's  fear — 
Justification  of  this  view  in  the  propaganda  of  Socialist 
Utopia-builders  —  The  Socialist  ideal  of  individual  liberty 

—  Absolute  individual  liberty  an  impossibility  —  Politi- 
cally, the  organization  of  the  Socialist  regime  must  be 
democratic  —  Automatic  democracy  unattainable — The 
need  of  eternal  vigilance  —  The  rights  of  the  individual 
and  of  society  briefly  stated  —  Private  property  and  in- 
dustry not  incompatible  with  modern  Socialism  —  The 
economic  structure  of  Socialism  —  Efficiency  the  test  for 
private  or  collective  industry  —  The  application  of  demo- 
cratic principles  to  industry  —  The  right  to  labor  guaran- 
teed by  society,   and  the  duty  to  labor  enforced   by 
society  —  Free  choice  of  labor  —  Methods  of  remunera- 
tion—  Who  will  do  the  dirty  work?  —  The  "abolition 
of  wages"  — The  inheritance  of  property  in  the  Socialist 
regime  —  The  security  of  society  against  the  improvidence 
of  its  members  —  The  administration  of  justice  —  Educa- 
tion completely  free  —  The  question  of  religious  educa- 
tion —  The  state  as  protector  of  the  rights  of  the  child  — 


XVI  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

No  hostility  to  religion,  but  strict  neutrality  —  A  maxi- 
mum of  personal  liberty  with  a  minimum  of  restraint  the 
Socialist  ideal 211-239 

APPENDIX 

National  Platform  of  the  Socialist  party  of  America       .      241-250 
INDEX  .  251-257 


SOCIALISM 

SUMMAEY  AND    INTERPRETATION  OF 
SOCIALIST  PRINCIPLES 


SOCIALISM 

CHAPTER  I 

INTEODUCTION 


TIME  was,  and  not  so  very  long  ago,  when  the 
kindest  conception  of  Socialism  held  by  the  aver- 
age man  was  that  of  the  once  familiar  and  cynical 
doggerel :  — 

"  What  is  a  Socialist  ?    One  who  is  willing 
To  give  up  his  penny  and  pocket  your  shilling." 1 

There  was  another  view,  more  brutally  unkind,  that 
of  the  blood-curdling  cartoon  representing  the  poor 
Socialist  as  a  bomb-laden  assassin.  Both  these  views 
are  now,  happily,  well-nigh  extinct.  Great  as  the 
ignorance  of  people  concerning  Socialism  still  is, 
we  have  progressed  so  far  that  neither  of  these  puerile 
misrepresentations  are  commonly  met  with.  It  is 
true  that  in  the  newspapers  Socialists  are  sometimes 
classed  with  Anarchists,  —  especially  in  times  of 
public  excitement  against  the  Anarchists,  —  and  that 

1  By  Ebenezer  Elliott,  the  "  Corn-Law  Rhymer." 
B  1 


2  SOCIALISM 

we  are  not  infrequently  asked  about  our  supposed 
intentions  of  having  a  great  general  "  dividing-up 
day"  for  the  equal  distribution  of  all  the  wealth  of 
the  nation.  Still,  it  is  the  exception  rather  than 
the  rule  to  encounter  these  criticisms,  and  they  do 
not  represent  the  attitude  of  the  mass  of  people 
toward  the  Socialist  movement. 

The  reason  for  the  changed  attitude  of  the  public 
toward  the  Socialist  movement  and  the  Socialist 
ideal,  will,  I  think,  be  found  in  the  growth  of  the 
Socialist  movement  itself.  There  are  many  who 
would  change  the  order  of  this  proposition  and  say 
that  the  growth  of  the  Socialist  movement  is  a  result 
of  the  changed  attitude  of  the  public  mind  toward 
it.  In  a  sense,  both  views  are  right.  Obviously,  if 
the  public  mind  had  not  revised  its  judgments  some- 
what, we  should  not  have  attained  our  present  strength 
and  development;  but  it  is  equally  obvious  that  if 
we  had  not  grown,  if  we  had  still  remained  the  small 
and  feeble  body  we  once  were,  the  public  mind  would 
not  have  revised  its  judgments  much,  if  at  all.  We 
should  still  have  been  regarded  as  advocates  of  the 

"Equal  division  of  unequal  earnings/' 

ready  to  enforce  our  sordidly  selfish  demands  by  the 
assassin's  cowardly  weapons.  It  is  easy  to  misrepre- 
sent and  to  vilify  a  small  body  of  men  and  women 
when  they  possess  no  powerful  influence. 


INTRODUCTION  3 

But  it  is  otherwise  when  that  small  body  has  grown 
into  a  great  body  with  far-reaching  influence.  So 
long  as  the  Socialist  movement  in  America  consisted 
of  a  few  poor  workingmen  in  two  or  three  of  the  largest 
cities,  most  of  them  foreigners,  it  was  very  easy  for 
the  average  man  to  accept  the  views  expressed  in  the 
ferocious,  blood-curdling  cartoon  and  the  sneering 
distich  of  the  poet's  satirical  fancy.  But  when  the 
movement  grew,  and,  instead  of  a  few  helpless  for- 
eigners, embraced  nearly  half  a  million  voters,  in 
all  parts  of  the  United  States,  it  became  a  different 
matter.  It  is  manifestly  impossible  for  a  great  world- 
wide movement,  numbering  its  adherents  by  the 
million,  and  having  for  its  advocates  many  of  the 
foremost  thinkers,  artists,  and  poets  of  the  world, 
to  be  based  upon  either  sordid  selfishness  or  mur- 
derous hate.  If  that  were  true,  if  it  were  possible 
for  such  a  thing  to  be  true,  the  most  gloomy  forbod- 
ings  of  the  pessimist  would  fall  far  short  of  the  real 
measure  of  Humanity's  impending  doom. 

Still,  the  word  "Socialism"  is  spoken  by  many 
with  the  pallid  lips  of  fear,  the  scowl  of  hate,  or  the 
amused  shrug  of  contempt;  while  in  the  same  land, 
people  of  the  same  race,  facing  the  same  problems 
and  perils,  speak  it  with  gladdened  voices  and  hope- 
lit  eyes.  Many  a  mother  crooning  over  her  babe 
prays  that  it  may  be  saved  from  the  Socialism  to 
which  another,  with  equal  mother-love,  looks  as  her 


4  SOCIALISM 

child's  heritage  and  hope.  And  with  scholars  and 
statesmen  it  is  much  the  same.  With  wonderful 
unanimity,  agreeing  that,  in  the  words  of  Herbert 
Spencer,  "Socialism  will  come  inevitably  in  spite 
of  all  opposition,"  they  yet  differ  quite  as  much  in 
their  estimates  of  its  character  and  probable  effects 
upon  the  race  as  the  most  unlearned.  One  welcomes 
and  another  fears ;  one  envies  the  unborn  generations, 
another  pities.  To  one  the  coming  of  Socialism 
means  the  coming  of  Human  Brotherhood,  the  long, 
long  quest  of  Humanity's  choicest  spirits;  while  to 
another  it  means  the  enslavement  of  the  world  through 
fear. 

Many  years  ago  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  wrote  an 
article  on  The  Coming  Slavery,  the  whole  tone  of 
which  conveyed  the  impression  that  the  great  thinker 
saw  what  he  thought  to  be  signs  of  the  inevitable 
triumph  of  Socialism.  All  over  the  world  Socialists 
were  cheered  by  this  admission  from  their  implacable 
enemy.  In  this  connection  the  following  incident 
is  worth  noticing:  In  October,  1905,  a  well-known 
Frenchman,  M.  G.  Davenay,  visited  Mr.  Spencer 
and  had  a  long  conversation  with  him  on  several 
subjects,  among  them,  Socialism.  A  few  days  after 
his  return,  he  received  a  letter  on  the  subject  from 
Mr.  Spencer,  written  in  French,  which  was  published 
in  the  Paris  Figaro  a  few  days  after  Mr.  Spencer's 
death,  in  December,  1905,  two  months  or  thereabouts 


INTRODUCTION  5 

from  the  time  of  the  interview  which  called  it  forth.1 
After  some  brief  reference  to  his  health,  Mr.  Spencer 
wrote:  "The  opinions  I  have  delivered  here  before 
you,  and  which  you  have  the  liberty  to  publish,  are 
briefly  these:  (1)  Socialism  will  triumph  inevitably, 
in  spite  of  all  opposition;  (2)  its  establishment  will 
be  the  greatest  disaster  which  the  world  has  ever 
known;  (3)  sooner  or  later,  it  will  be  brought  to  an 
end  by  a  military  despotism." 

Anything  more  awful  than  this  black  pessimism 
which  clouded  the  life  of  the  great  thinker,  it  would 
be  difficult  to  imagine.  After  living  his  long  life 
of  splendid  service  in  the  interest  of  progress,  and 
studying  as  few  men  have  ever  done  the  history  of 
the  race,  he  went  down  to  his  grave  fully  believing 
that  the  world  was  doomed  to  inevitable  disaster. 
How  different  from  the  confidence  of  the  poet,2 
foretelling  — 

"A  wonderful  day  a-coming  when  all  shall  be  better  than 
well." 

The  last  words  of  the  great  French  Utopist,  Saint- 
Simon,  were,  "The  future  is  ours!"  And  thousands 
of  times  his  words  have  been  reechoed  by  those 
who,  believing  equally  with  Herbert  Spencer  that 
Socialism  must  come,  see  in  the  prospect  only  the 

1  I  quote  the  English  translation  from  the  London  Clarion,  Decem- 
ber 18,  1905. 

3  William  Morris. 


6  SOCIALISM 

fulfillment  of  the  age-long  dream  of  Human  Brother- 
hood. Men  as  profound  as  Spencer,  and  as  sincere, 
rejoice  at  the  very  thing  which  blanched  his  cheeks 
and  filled  his  heart  with  fear. 

There  is,  then,  a  widespread  conviction  that  So- 
cialism will  come  and,  hi  coming,  vitally  affect  for 
good  or  ill  every  life.  Millions  of  earnest  men  and 
women  have  enlisted  themselves  beneath  its  ban- 
ner in  various  lands,  and  their  number  is  con- 
stantly growing.  In  this  country,  as  in  Europe, 
the  growth  of  Socialism  is  one  of  the  most  evident 
facts  of  the  age,  and  its  study  is  therefore  most  im- 
portant. What  does  it  mean,  and  what  does  it 
promise  or  threaten,  are  questions  which  civic 
duty  prompts.  The  day  is  not  far  distant  when 
ignorance  of  Socialism  will  be  regarded  as  a  dis- 
grace, and  neglect  of  it  a  civic  wrong.  For  no  man 
can  faithfully  discharge  the  responsibilities  of  his 
citizenship  until  he  is  able  to  give  an  answer  to  these 
questions. 

II 

The  word  "Socialism"  is  admittedly  one  of  the 
noblest  and  most  inspiring  words  ever  born  of  human 
speech.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  prin- 
ciples it  represents,  or  of  the  political  parties  which 
contend  for  it,  no  one  can  dispute  the  beauty  and 
moral  grandeur  of  the  word  itself.  Derived  from 


INTRODUCTION  7 

the  Latin  word  Socius,  meaning  a  comrade,  it  is, 
like  the  word  "mother,"  for  instance,  one  of  those 
great  universal  speech  symbols  which  find  their  way 
into  every  language.  Signifying  as  it  does  faith  in 
the  comradeship  of  man  as  the  proper  basis  of  social 
life,  prefiguring  a  social  state  in  which  there  shall  be 
no  strife  of  man  against  man,  or  nation  against  nation, 
it  is  a  verbal  expression  of  man's  loftiest  aspirations 
crystallized  into  a  single  word.  The  old  Hebrew 
Prophet's  dream  of  a  word-righteousness  that  shall 
give  peace,  when  nations  "shall  beat  their  swords  into 
plowshares,  and  their  spears  into  pruninghooks,"  1 
and  the  Angel-song  of  Peace  and  Goodwill  in  the  leg- 
ends of  the  Nativity,  mean  no  more.  Plato,  spiritual 
son  of  Socrates  who  for  truth's  sake  drained  the  hem- 
lock cup  to  its  dregs,  dreamed  of  such  social  peace 
and  unity,  and  the  line  of  those  whose  eyes  have 
seen  the  same  glorious  vision  of  a  love-welded  world 
has  never  been  broken,  —  More  and  Campanella, 
Saint-Simon  and  Owen,  Marx  and  Engels,  Morris 
and  Bellamy,  and  the  end  of  the  prophetic  line  is 
not  yet. 

But  if  the  dream,  the  hope  itself,  is  old,  the  word 
which  expresses  the  hope  is  new.  It  is  hard  to  realize 
that  the  word  which  means  so  much  to  countless 
millions  of  human  beings,  in  every  civilized  country 
of  the  world,  is  no  older  than  some  of  those  whose 

1  Isaiah  ii.  4. 


8  SOCIALISM 

lips  speak  it  with  reverence  and  hope.  Because  it 
will  help  us  to  a  clearer  understanding  of  modern 
Socialism,  and  because  too  it  is  little  known,  notwith- 
standing its  intensely  interesting  character,  let  us 
linger  awhile  over  that  page  of  history  which  re- 
cords the  origin  of  this  noble  word. 

Some  years  ago,  anxious  to  settle,  if  possible,  the 
vexed  question  of  the  origin  and  first  use  of  the  word 
"  Socialism  "  I  devoted  a  good  deal  of  time  to  an  inves- 
tigation of  the  subject,  spending  much  of  it  in  a  care- 
ful survey  of  all  the  early  nineteenth-century  radical 
literature.  I  early  found  that  the  generally  ac- 
cepted account  of  its  introduction,  by  the  French 
writer,  L.  Reybaud,  in  1840,  was  wrong.  Indeed, 
when  once  started  on  the  investigation,  it  seemed 
rather  surprising  that  the  account  should  have  been 
accepted,  practically  without  challenge,  for  so  long. 
Finally  I  concluded  that  an  anonymous  writer  in 
an  English  paper  was  the  first  to  use  the  word,  the 
date  being  August  24,  1835. 1  Since  that  time  an 
investigation  of  a  commendably  thorough  nature 
has  been  made  by  three  students  of  the  University 
of  Wisconsin,2  with  the  result  that  they  have  been 
unable  to  find  any  earlier  use  of  the  word.  It  is 
somewhat  disappointing  that  after  thus  tracing 


1  See   Socialism   and  Social  Democracy,   by   the   present  writer. 
The  Comrade,  Vol.  II,  No.  6,  March,  1903. 

3  In  The  International  Socialist  Review,  Vol.  VI,  No.  1,  July,  1905. 


INTRODUCTION  9 

the  word  back  to  what  may  well  be  its  first  appear- 
ance in  print,  it  should  be  impossible  to  identify  its 
creator. 

The  letter  hi  which  the  term  is  first  used  is  signed 
"  A  Socialist,"  and  it  is  quite  evident  that  the  writer 
uses  it  as  a  synonym  for  the  commonly  used  term 
"Owenite,"  by  which  the  disciples  of  Robert  Owen 
were  known.  I  think  it  is  most  probable  that  Owen 
himself  had  used  the  word,  and,  to  some  extent, 
made  it  popular;  and  that  the  writer  had  heard 
"Our  Dear  Social  Father,"  as  Owen  was  called,  use 
it,  either  in  some  of  his  speeches  or  in  conversation. 
At  any  rate,  one  of  Owen's  associates,  now  dead,  told 
me  some  years  ago  that  Owen  often  specifically 
claimed  to  have  used  the  word  at  least  ten  years 
before  it  was  adopted  by  any  other  writer. 

The  word  gradually  became  more  familiar  in 
England.  Throughout  the  years  1835-1836,  in  the 
pages  of  Owen's  paper,  The  New  Moral  World,  there 
are  many  instances  of  the  word  occurring.  The 
French  writer,  Reybaud,  in  his  Reformateurs  Mo- 
dernes,  published  in  1840,  made  the  term  equally 
familiar  to  the  reading  public  of  Continental  Europe. 
By  him  it  was  used  to  designate  not  merely  Owen 
and  his  followers,  but  all  social  reformers  and  vision- 
aries,—  Saint-Simon,  Charles  Fourier,  Louis  Blanc, 
and  others.  By  an  easy  transition,  it  soon  came 
into  general  use  as  designating  all  altruistic  visions, 


10  SOCIALISM 

theories,  and  experiments,  from  the  Republic  of  Plato 
onward  through  the  centuries. 

In  this  way  much  confusion  arose.  The  word  be- 
came too  indefinite  and  vague  to  be  distinctive.  It 
was  applied  indiscriminately  to  persons  of  widely 
differing,  and  often  conflicting,  views.  Every  one 
who  complained  of  social  inequalities,  every  dreamer 
of  social  Utopias,  was  called  a  Socialist.  The  en- 
thusiastic Christian,  pleading  for  a  return  to  the  faith 
and  practices  of  primitive  Christianity,  and  the 
aggressive  Atheist,  proclaiming  religion  to  be  the 
bulwark  of  the  world's  wrongs;  the  State-wor- 
shipper, who  would  extol  Law,  and  spread  the  net 
of  government  over  the  whole  of  life,  and  the  icono- 
clastic Anarchist,  who  would  destroy  all  forms  of 
social  authority,  have  all  alike  been  dubbed  Socialists, 
by  then*  friends  no  less  than  by  their  opponents. 

The  confusion  thus  introduced  has  had  the  effect 
of  seriously  complicating  the  study  of  Socialism  from 
the  historical  point  of  view.  Thus  the  Socialists  of 
the  present  day,  who  do  not  advocate  Communism, 
have  always  regarded  as  a  classic  presentation  of 
their  views,  the  famous  pamphlet  by  Karl  Marx  and 
Friedrich  Engels,  the  Communist  Manifesto.  They 
have  circulated  it  by  millions  of  copies  in  practi- 
cally all  the  languages  of  the  civilized  world.  Yet 
throughout  it  speaks  of  "Socialists"  with  ill-con- 
cealed disdain,  and  always  in  favor  of  Communism 


INTRODUCTION  11 

and  the  Communist  Party.  The  reason  for  this  is 
clearly  explained  by  Engels  himself  in  the  preface 
written  by  him  for  the  English  edition,  but  that  has 
not  sufficed  to  prevent  misconception  hi  many  cases; 
nor  has  it  prevented  many  an  unscrupulous  opponent 
of  Socialism  from  quoting  the  Communist  Manifesto 
of  Marx  and  Engels  against  the  Socialists  of  the 
Marx-Engels  school.1  In  like  manner,  the  utterances 
and  ideas  of  many  of  those  who  formerly  called  them- 
selves Socialists  have  been  quoted  against  the  mod- 
ern Socialists,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  was 
precisely  on  account  of  their  desire  to  repudiate  all 
connection  with,  and  responsibility  for,  such  ideas 
that  the  founders  of  the  modern  Socialist  movement 
took  the  name  Communists. 

Nothing  could  well  be  clearer  than  the  language  hi 
which  Engels  explains  why  the  name  Communist  was 
chosen,  and  the  name  Socialist  discarded.  He  says : 2 
"Yet,  when  it  (the  Manifesto)  was  written,  we  could 
not  have  called  it  a  Socialist  Manifesto.  By  Social- 
ists, in  1847,  were  understood,  on  the  one  hand,  the 
adherents  of  the  various  Utopian  systems :  Owenites 

1  As  an  instance  of  this  I  note  the  following  recent  example : 
"No  severer  critic  of  Socialists  ever  lived  than  Karl  Marx.     No  one 
more   bitterly   attacked    them   and   their   policy   toward   the   trade 
unions,  than  he.   .  .   .     And  yet  Socialists  regard  him  as  their  patron 
saint."     Mr.  Samuel  Gompers,  in  The  American  Federationist,  August, 
1905. 

2  Preface  to  the  Communist  Manifesto,  by  F.  Engels,  Kerr  edition, 
page  7. 


12  SOCIALISM 

in  England,  Fourierists  in  France,  both  of  these 
already  reduced  to  the  position  of  mere  sects,  and 
gradually  dying  out;  on  the  other  hand,  the  most 
multifarious  social  quacks,  who,  by  all  manner  of  tink- 
ering, professed  to  redress,  without  any  danger  to 
capital  and  profit,  all  sorts  of  social  grievances,  in 
both  cases,  men  outside  of  the  working-class  move- 
ment, and  looking  rather  to  the  'educated'  classes 
for  support.  Whatever  portion  of  the  working  class 
had  become  convinced  of  the  insufficiency  of  mere 
political  revolutions,  and  had  proclaimed  the  neces- 
sity of  a  total  social  change,  that  portion,  then, 
called  itself  Communist.  It  was  a  crude,  rough- 
hewn,  purely  instinctive  sort  of  Communism;  still, 
it  touched  the  cardinal  point  and  was  powerful 
enough  among  the  working  class  to  produce  the 
Utopian  Communism  hi  France  of  Cabet,  and  in 
Germany  of  Weitling.  Thus  Socialism  was,  in 
1847,  a  middle-class  movement;  Communism,  a 
working-class  movement.  Socialism  was,  on  the 
Continent  at  least,  'respectable';  Communism  was 
the  very  opposite.  And  as  our  notion,  from  the 
very  beginning,  was  that  the  'emancipation  of  the 
working  class  must  be  the  act  of  the  working  class 
itself/  there  could  be  no  doubt  as  to  which  of  the 
names  we  must  take.  Moreover,  we  have  ever  since 
been  far  from  repudiating  it." 
There  is  still,  unfortunately,  much  misuse  of  the 


INTRODUCTION  13 

word  "Socialist,"  even  by  accredited  Socialist  writers. 
For  instance,  writers  like  Tolstoy,  Ibsen,  Zola,  and 
others,  are  constantly  referred  to  as  Socialists,  when, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  are  nothing  of  the  sort. 
Still,  the  word  is  now  pretty  generally  understood  as 
denned  by  the  Socialists;  not  the  "Socialists"  of 
sixty  years  ago,  who  were  mostly  Communists,  but 
of  the  present-day  Socialists,  whose  principles  find 
classic  expression  in  the  Communist  Manifesto, 
and  to  the  attainment  of  which  their  political  pro- 
grammes are  directed. 


CHAPTER  II 

ROBERT  OWEN  AND   THE    UTOPIAN  SPIRIT 


IN  order  that  we  may  distinguish  between  modern 
or  scientific  Socialism  and  the  Socialism  of  the 
Utopians,  which  the  Communist  Manifesto  so  se- 
verely criticised,  it  may  perhaps  be  well  to  consider 
briefly  Utopian  Socialism  at  its  best  and  nearest 
approach  to  the  modern  movement.  Thus  we  shall 
get  a  clear  vision  of  the  point  of  departure  which 
marked  the  rise  of  the  later  scientific  movement, 
and,  incidentally,  of  the  good  Robert  Owen,  whom 
Liebknecht  has  called, "  By  far  the  most  embracing, 
penetrating,  and  practical  of  all  the  harbingers  of 
scientific  Socialism." 

Friedrich  Engels,  a  man  not  given  to  praising 
overmuch,  has  spoken  of  Owen  with  an  enthusi- 
asm which  he  rarely  showed  in  his  descriptions  of 
men.  He  calls  him,  "A  man  of  almost  sublime  and 
childlike  simplicity  of  character,"  and  declares, 
"Every  social  movement,  every  real  advance  in 

14 


ROBERT  OWEN  AND  THE  UTOPIAN  SPIRIT          15 

England  on  behalf  of  the  workers,  links  itself  on 
to  the  name  of  Robert  Owen." l  And  even  this 
high  praise  from  the  part-author  of  the  Communist 
Manifesto,  who  for  so  many  years  was  called  the 
"Nestor  of  the  Socialist  Movement,"  falls  short, 
because  it  does  not  recognize  the  enormous  influ- 
ence of  the  man  in  the  United  States  in  the  forma- 
tive period  of  its  history. 

Robert  Owen  was  born  of  humble  parentage,  in 
a  little  town  in  North  Wales,  on  the  fourteenth  day 
of  May,  1771.  Perhaps  it  is  well  that  he  was  born 
in  such  humble  circumstances,  and  that  his  parents 
could  not  afford  to  gratify  to  the  full  the  desire  of 
his  boyhood  for  education.  The  lad  thirsted  for 
knowledge,  and  wanted  above  all  things  a  university 
education.  Poverty  kills  its  thousands,  destroys 
hope,  ambition,  and  courage  in  millions  more.  But 
sometimes  it  fails,  and  the  soul  it  would  have  killed 
emerges  from  the  struggle  triumphant  and  strong. 
Such  a  soul  had  this  poor  Welsh  country  lad.  His 
scanty  schooling  ended,  and  he  set  out  to  fight  the 
battle  of  life  for  himself  in  London,  when  he  was 
but  ten  years  of  age.  When  he  was  little  more 
than  seven  years  of  age,  so  he  tells  us  in  his  Auto- 
biography, he  had  familiarized  himself  with  Milton's 
Paradise  Lost.  By  the  time  he  was  ten  years  of 

1  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific,  by  F.  Engels,  London,  1892, 
pages  20-25. 


16  SOCIALISM 

age,  like  Olive  Schreiner's  boy  Waldo  in  The  Story  of 
an  African  Farm,  he  had  grappled  with  the  ages-old 
problem  of  life,  and  become  a  skeptic !  It  is  doubt- 
ful, however,  if  his  "skepticism"  really  consisted  of 
more  than  the  consciousness  that  there  were  apparent 
contradictions  in  the  Bible,  a  discovery  which  many 
a  precocious  lad  has  made  at  quite  as  early  an  age. 
Still,  the  incident  is  worthy  of  note  as  indicating 
the  boy's  inquiring  spirit. 

In  London,  the  young  lad  was  apprenticed  to 
a  draper  named  McGuffeg,  who  seems  to  have  been 
a  rather  superior  type  of  man.  From  a  small  peddling 
business  he  had  built  up  one  of  the  largest  and  wealth- 
iest establishments  in  that  part  of  London,  catering 
to  the  wealthy  and  the  titled  nobility.  Above  all, 
McGuffeg  was  a  man  of  books,  and  in  his  well-stocked 
library  young  Owen  could  read  several  hours  each 
day,  and  thus  make  up  in  a  measure  for  his  early 
lack  of  educational  opportunities.  During  the  three 
years  of  his  apprenticeship  he  read  prodigiously,  and 
laid  the  foundations  of  that  literary  culture  which 
characterized  his  whole  life  and  added  tremendously 
to  his  power. 

This  is  not  in  any  sense  of  the  word  a  biographical 
sketch  of  Robert  Owen.1  If  it  were,  the  story  of 
the  rise  of  this  poor,  strange,  strong  lad,  from  poverty 

1  For  a  good  sketch  of  Robert  Owen's  life,  see  the  Biography,  by 
Lloyd  Jones,  in  The  Social  Science  Series,  London,  1890. 


ROBERT  OWEN  AND  THE   UTOPIAN   SPIRIT          17 

to  the  very  pinnacle  of  commercial  power  and  fame, 
as  one  of  the  leading  manufacturers  of  his  day, 
would  lead  through  pathways  of  romance  as  wonderful 
as  any  in  our  biographical  literature.  We  are  con- 
cerned, however,  only  with  his  career  as  a  social 
reformer  and  the  forces  which  molded  it.  And  that, 
too,  has  its  romantic  side. 

II 

The  closing  years  of  the  eighteenth  century  marked 
the  beginning  of  a  great  and  far-reaching  industrial 
revolution.  The  introduction  of  new  mechanical 
inventions  enormously  increased  the  productive 
powers  of  England.  In  1770  Hargreaves  patented 
his  "spinning  jenny,"  and  in  the  following  year 
Arkwright  invented  his  "water  frame,"  a  patent 
spinning  machine  which  derived  its  name  from  the 
fact  that  it  was  worked  by  water  power.  Later, 
in  1779,  Crompton  invented  the  "mule,"  which 
was  really  a  combination  of  the  principles  of  both 
machines.  This  was  a  long  step  forward,  and  greatly 
facilitated  the  spinning  of  the  raw  material  into 
yarn.  The  invention  was,  in  fact,  a  revolution  in 
itself.  Like  so  many  other  great  inventors,  Cromp- 
ton died  in  poverty. 

Even  now,  however,  the  actual  weaving  of  the  spun 
yarn  had  to  be  done  by  hand.  Not  until  1785,  when 
Dr.  Cartwright,  a  parson,  invented  a  "power-loom," 


18  SOCIALISM 

was  it  deemed  possible  to  weave  by  machinery. 
Cart wright's  invention,  coming  in  the  same  year  as 
the  general  introduction  of  Watt's  steam  engine  in 
the  cotton  industry,  made  the  industrial  revolution. 
Had  the  revolution  come  slowly,  had  the  inventors 
of  the  new  industrial  processes  been  able  to  accom- 
plish that,  it  is  most  probable  that  much  of  the  misery 
of  the  period  would  have  been  avoided.  As  it  was, 
terrible  poverty  and  hardship  attended  the  birth  of 
the  new  industrial  order.  Owing  to  the  expense  of 
introducing  the  machines,  and  the  impossibility  of 
competing  with  them  by  the  old  methods  of  produc- 
tion, the  small  manufacturers  themselves  were  forced 
to  the  wall,  and  their  misery,  forcing  them  to  become 
wage- workers  in  competition  with  other  already 
far  too  numerous  wage-workers,  added  greatly  to 
the  woe  of  the  time.  William  Morris's  fine  lines,  writ- 
ten a  hundred  years  later,  express  vividly  what  many 
a  manufacturer  must  have  felt  at  that  tune:  — 

"Fast  and  faster  our  iron  master, 
The  thing  we  made,  forever  drives." 

But  perhaps  the  worst  of  all  the  results  of  the 
new  regime  was  the  destruction  of  the  personal  re- 
lations which  had  hitherto  existed  between  the  em- 
ployers and  their  employees.  No  attention  was 
paid  to  the  interests  of  the  latter.  The  personal  re- 
lation was  forever  gone,  and  only  a  hard,  cold  cash 
nexus  remained.  Wages  went  down  at  an  alarm- 


ROBERT   OWEN  AND  THE  UTOPIAN   SPIRIT          19 

ing  rate,  as  might  be  expected;  the  housing  condi- 
tions became  simply  inhuman.  Now  it  was  discov- 
ered that  a  child  at  one  of  the  new  looms  could  do 
more  than  a  dozen  men  had  done  under  the  old  con- 
ditions, and  a  tremendous  demand  for  child  workers 
was  the  result.  At  first,  as  H.  de  B.  Gibbins1  tells 
us,  there  was  a  strong  repugnance  on  the  part  of 
parents  to  sending  their  children  into  the  factories. 
It  was,  in  fact,  considered  a  disgrace  to  do  so.  The 
term  "factory  girl"  was  an  insulting  epithet,  and  it 
was  impossible  for  a  girl  who  had  been  employed  in  a 
factory  to  obtain  other  employment.  She  could  not 
look  forward  to  marriage  with  any  but  the  very  low- 
est of  men,  so  degrading  was  factory  employment  con- 
sidered to  be.  But  the  manufacturers  had  to  get 
children  somehow,  and  they  got  them.  They  got 
them  from  the  workhouses.  Pretending  that  they 
were  going  to  apprentice  them  to  a  trade,  they 
communicated  with  the  overseers  of  the  poor,  who 
arranged  a  day  for  the  inspection  of  the  children  to 
suit  the  convenience  of  the  manufacturer.  Those 
chosen  were  then  conveyed  to  their  destination, 
packed  in  wagons  or  canal  boats,  and  from  that 
moment  were  doomed  to  the  most  awful  form  of 
slavery. 
"  Some  times  regular  traffickers  would  take  the 

1  The  Industrial  History  of  England,  by  H.  de  B.  Gibbins,  London, 
Methuen  and  Co. 


20  SOCIALISM 

place  of  the  manufacturer,"  says  Gibbins,1  "and 
transfer  a  number  of  children  to  a  factory  dis- 
trict, and  there  keep  them,  generally  in  some  dark 
cellar,  till  they  could  hand  them  over  to  a  mill 
owner  in  want  of  hands,  who  would  come  and  ex- 
amine their  height,  strength,  and  bodily  capacities, 
exactly  as  did  the  slave  owners  in  the  American 
markets.  After  that  the  children  were  simply  at 
the  mercy  of  their  owners,  nominally  as  apprentices, 
but  in  reality  as  mere  slaves,  who  got  no  wages, 
and  whom  it  was  not  worth  while  even  to  feed  and 
clothe  properly,  because  they  were  so  cheap,  and 
their  places  could  be  so  easily  supplied.  It  was  often 
arranged  by  the  parish  authorities,  in  order  to  get 
rid  of  imbeciles,  that  one  idiot  should  be  taken  by 
the  mill  owner  with  every  twenty  sane  children. 
The  fate  of  these  unhappy  idiots  was  even  worse 
than  that  of  the  others.  The  secret  of  their  final 
end  has  never  been  disclosed,  but  we  can  form  some 
idea  of  their  awful  sufferings  from  the  hardships  of 
the  other  victims  to  capitalist  greed  and  cruelty. 
The  hours  of  their  labor  were  only  limited  by  ex- 
haustion, after  many  modes  of  torture  had  been 
unavailmgly  applied  to  force  continued  work.  Chil- 
dren were  often  worked  sixteen  hours  a  day,  by  day 
and  by  night." 
Terrible  as  this  summary  is,  it  does  not  equal  in 

1  Industrial  History  of  England,  page  179. 


ROBERT  OWEN  AND  THE   UTOPIAN   SPIRIT          21 

horror  the  account  given  by  "Alfred,"  *  in  his  His- 
tory of  the  Factory  System.  "  In  stench,  in  heated 
rooms,  amid  the  constant  whirl  of  a  thousand  wheels, 
little  fingers  and  little  feet  were  kept  in  ceaseless 
action,  forced  into  unnatural  activity  by  blows  from 
the  heavy  hands  and  feet  of  the  merciless  overlooker, 
and  the  infliction  of  bodily  pain  by  instruments  of 
punishment  invented  by  the  sharpened  ingenuity 
of  insatiable  selfishness."  The  children  were  fed 
upon  the  cheapest  and  coarsest  food,  often  the  same 
as  that  served  to  their  masters'  pigs.  They  slept  by 
turns,  and  in  relays,  in  filthy  beds  which  were  never 
cool.  There  was  often  no  discrimination  between 
the  sexes,  and  disease,  misery,  and  vice  flourished. 
Some  of  these  miserable  creatures  would  try  to  rim 
away,  and  to  prevent  them,  those  suspected  had 
irons  riveted  on  their  ankles,  with  long  links  reaching 
up  to  the  hips,  and  were  compelled  to  sleep  and  work 
with  them  on,  young  women  and  girls,  as  well  as 
boys,  suffering  this  brutal  treatment.  The  number 
of  deaths  was  so  great  that  they  were  buried  secretly 
at  night,  lest  an  outcry  should  be  raised;  and  many 
committed  suicide. 

These  statements  are  so  appalling  that,  as  Mr. 
R.  W.  Cooke-Taylor  says,2  they  would  be  "absolutely 

1  This   anonymous   historian  is   now   known   to   have   been   Mr. 
Samuel  Kydd,  barrister-at-law  (vide  Cooke-Taylor). 

2  The  Factory  System  and  the  Factory  Acts,  by  R.  W.   Cooke- 
Taylor,  London,  1894. 


22  SOCIALISM 

incredible  were  they  not  fully  borne  out  by  evidence 
from  other  sources."  It  is  not  contended,  of  course, 
that  the  conditions  in  all  factories  were  as  bad  as 
those  described.  But  it  must  be  said  emphatically 
that  there  were' worse  horrors  than  any  here  quoted, 
and  equally  emphatically  that  the  very  best  fac- 
tories were  only  a  little  better  than  those  described. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  account  given  by  Robert  Owen 
of  the  conditions  which  prevailed  in  the  "model  fac- 
tory "  of  the  time,  the  establishment  at  New  Lanark, 
Scotland,  owned  by  Mr.  David  Dale,  where  Owen 
himself  was  destined  to  introduce  so  many  striking 
reforms.  Owen  assumed  control  of  the  New  Lanark 
mills  on  the  first  day  of  the  year  1800.  In  his  Auto- 
biography,1 he  gives  some  account  of  the  conditions 
which  he  found  there,  in  the  "  best-regulated  factory 
in  the  world,"  at  that  time.  There  were,  says  Owen, 
about  five  hundred  children  employed,  who  "were 
received  as  early  as  six  years  old,  the  pauper  authori- 
ties declining  to  send  them  at  any  later  age."  They 
worked  from  six  in  the  morning  till  seven  in  the 
evening,  and  then  their  education  began.  They  hated 
their  slavery,  and  many  absconded.  Many  were 
dwarfed  and  stunted  in  stature,  and  when  they  were 
through  their  "  apprenticeship,"  at  thirteen  or  fifteen 

1  In  two  volumes :  London,  Effingham  Wilson,  1857  and  1858. 
Vol.  I  contains  the  Life ;  Vol.  II  is  a  Supplementary  Appendix,  and 
contains  Reports,  Addresses,  etc.  Quotations  are  from  Vol.  I. 


ROBERT  OWEN   AND  THE  UTOPIAN   SPIRIT          23 

years  of  age,  they  commonly  went  off  to  Glasgow  or 
Edinburgh,  with  no  guardians,  ignorant  and  ready  — 
"  admirably  suited,"  is  Owen's  phrase  —  to  swell  the 
great  mass  of  vice  and  misery  in  the  towns.  The 
people  in  New  Lanark  lived  ''almost  without  control, 
in  habits  of  vice,  idleness,  poverty,  debt,  and  destitu- 
tion. Thieving  was  general."  With  such  condi- 
tions existing  in  a  model  factory,  under  a  master 
whose  benevolence  was  celebrated  everywhere,  it 
can  be  very  readily  believed  that  conditions  else- 
where must  have  been  abominable. 

As  a  result  of  the  appalling  poverty  which  devel- 
oped, it  soon  became  necessary  for  poor  parents  to 
permit  their  children  to  go  into  the  factories.  The 
mighty  machines  were  far  too  powerful  for  the 
prejudices  of  parental  hearts.  Child  wage- workers 
became  common.  They  were  subjected  to  little 
better  conditions  than  the  "parish  apprentices"  had 
been;  in  fact  they  were  often  employed  alongside 
of  them.  Fathers  were  unemployed,  and  fre- 
quently took  meals  to  their  little  ones  who  were  at 
work  —  a  not  unusual  thing  even  in  the  United 
States  at  the  present  tune.  Michael  Sadler,  a  Mem- 
ber of  the  British  House  of  Commons  and  a  fearless 
champion  of  the  rights  of  the  poor  and  oppressed, 
has  described  this  aspect  of  the  Child  Labor  evil 
in  touching  verse.  The  poem  is  too  long  to  quote 
entire,  so  I  give  only  three  stanzas :  — 


24  SOCIALISM 

"'Father,  I'm  up,  but  weary, 
I  scarce  can  reach  the  door, 
And  long  the  way  and  dreary  — 
Oh,  carry  me  once  more ! 
To  help  us  we've  no  mother, 
And  you  have  no  employ, 
They  killed  my  little  brother  — 
Like  him  I'll  work  and  die.' 

"  Her  wasted  form  seemed  nothing  — 
The  load  was  at  his  heart, 
The  sufferer  he  kept  soothing 
Till  at  the  mill  they  part. 
The  overlooker  met  her, 
As  to  her  frame  she  crept, 
And  with  his  thong  he  beat  her 
And  cursed  her  as  she  wept. 

"All  night  with  tortured  feeling, 
He  watched  his  speechless  child, 
While,  close  beside  her  kneeling, 
She  knew  him  not  nor  smiled. 
Again  the  factory's  ringing 
Her  last  perceptions  tried, 
When,  from  her  straw  bed  springing, 
'  'Tis  time !'  she  shrieked,  and  died ! " » 

During  all  this  time,  let  it  be  remembered,  the 
English  philanthropists,  and  among  them  many  capi- 
talists, were  agitating  against  negro  slavery  in  Africa 
and  elsewhere,  and  raising  funds  for  the  slaves' 
emancipation.  Says  Gibbins,2  "  The  spectacle  of 

1  The  poem  is  given  in  its  entirety  by  Mr.  H.  S.  Salt,  in  Songs  of 
Freedom,  pages  81-83. 

3  Industrial  History  of  England,  page  181. 


ROBERT   OWEN  AND   THE   UTOPIAN   SPIRIT          25 

England  buying  the  freedom  of  black  slaves  by  riches 
drawn  from  the  labor  of  her  white  ones  affords  an 
interesting  study  for  the  cynical  philosopher." 

As  we  read  the  accounts  of  the  distress  which  fol- 
lowed upon  the  introduction  of  the  new  mechanical 
inventions,  it  is  impossible  to  regard  with  surprise, 
or  with  condemnatory  feelings,  the  riots  of  the  des- 
perate "Luddites,"  who  went  about  destroying 
machinery  in  their  blind  desperation.  Ned  Lud, 
after  whom  the  Luddites  are  said  to  have  been  named, 
was  an  idiot,  it  is  said ;  but  wiser  men,  finding  them- 
selves reduced  to  abject  poverty  through  the  intro- 
duction of  the  giant  machines,  could  see  no  further 
than  he.  Was  it  to  be  expected  that  they  should 
understand  that  it  was  not  the  machines,  but  the 
institution  of  their  private  ownership,  and  use  for 
private  gain,  that  was  wrong?  The  Luddites  were 
not,  as  some  writers  seem  to  infer,  the  first  to  make 
war  upon  machinery.  In  1758,  for  example,  Everet's 
first  machine  for  dressing  wool,  an  ingenious  contriv- 
ance worked  by  water  power,  was  set  upon  by  a 
mob  and  reduced  to  ashes.  From  that  time  on 
similar  outbreaks  occurred  with  more  or  less  fre- 
quency ;  but  it  was  not  until  1810  that  the  organized 
bodies  of  Luddites  went  from  town  to  town,  sacking 
factories  and  destroying  the  machines  in  their  half- 
blind  revolt. 

The  contest  between  the  capitalist  and  the  wage- 


26  SOCIALISM 

worker,  which,  as  Karl  Marx  says,  dates  back  to 
the  very  origin  of  capital,  took  a  new  form  when 
machinery  was  first  introduced.  Henceforth,  the 
worker  fights  not  only,  nor  indeed  mainly,  against  the 
capitalist,  but  against  the  machine,  as  the  material 
basis  of  capitalist  exploitation.  In  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, the  ribbon  loom,  a  machine  for  weaving  rib- 
bons, was  invented  in  Germany.  Marx  quotes  an 
Italian  traveler,  Abbe  Lancellotti,  who  wrote  in 
1579  as  follows:  "Anthony  Muller,  of  Danzig,  saw 
about  fifty  years  ago,  in  that  town,  a  very  ingenious 
machine,  which  weaves  four  to  six  pieces  at  once. 
But  the  mayor,  being  apprehensive  that  this  inven- 
tion might  throw  a  large  number  of  workmen  on  the 
streets,  caused  the  inventor  to  be  secretly  strangled 
or  drowned."  i  In  1629  this  ribbon  loom  was  intro- 
duced into  Leyden,  where  the  riots  of  the  ribbon 
weavers  forced  the  town  council  to  prohibit  it.  In 
1676  its  use  was  prohibited  in  Cologne,  at  the  same 
time  that  its  introduction  was  causing  serious  dis- 
turbances in  England.  "By  an  imperial  Edict  of  the 
19th  of  February,  1685,  its  use  was  forbidden  through- 
out all  Germany.  In  Hamburg  it  was  burned  in 
public,  by  order  of  the  Senate.  The  Emperor  Charles 
VI,  on  the  9th  of  February,  1719,  renewed  the  Edict 
of  1685,  and  not  till  1765  was  its  use  openly  allowed 
in  the  Electorate  of  Saxony.  This  machine,  which 

1  Capital,  by  Karl  Marx,  London,  1891,  page  427. 


ROBERT   OWEN   AND  THE   UTOPIAN   SPIRIT          27 

shook  all  Europe  to  its  foundations,  was  in  fact  the 
precursor  of  the  mule  and  power  loom,  and  of  the 
industrial  revolution  of  the  eighteenth  century.  It 
enabled  a  totally  inexperienced  boy  to  set  the  whole 
loom,  with  all  its  shuttles,  in  motion,  by  simply 
moving  a  rod  backward  and  forward,  and  in  its 
improved  form  produced  from  forty  to  fifty  pieces 
at  once."1 

Much  denunciation  has  been  poured  upon  the 
blind,  stupid  revolt  of  the  workers  against  the  ma- 
chines, but  in  view  of  the  misery  and  poverty  which 
they  suffered,  it  is  impossible  not  to  sympathize  with 
them.  As  Marx  justly  says,  "It  took  both  time  and 
experience  before  the  work  people  learned  to  dis- 
tinguish between  machinery  and  its  employment  by 
capital,  and  to  direct  their  attacks,  not  against  the 
material  instruments  of  production,  but  against 
the  mode  in  which  they  are  used."3 

Ill 

Under  the  new  industrial  regime,  Robert  Owen, 
the  erstwhile  poor  draper's  apprentice,  soon  became 
one  of  the  most  successful  manufacturers  in  England. 
At  eighteen  years  of  age  we  find  him  entering  into 
the  manufacture  of  the  new  cotton  spinning  machines, 
with  a  borrowed  capital  of  $500.  His  partner  was  a 

1  Capital,  page  428. 

2  Idem,  page  429. 


28  SOCIALISM 

man  named  Jones,  and,  though  the  enterprise  proved 
successful  from  a  financial  point  of  view,  the  partner- 
ship proved  to  be  most  disagreeable.  Accordingly 
it  was  dissolved,  Owen  taking  three  of  the  "mules" 
which  they  were  making  as  a  reimbursement  for  his 
investment.  With  these  and  some  other  machinery, 
Owen  entered  into  the  cotton  manufacturing  indus- 
try, employing  at  first  only  three  men,  and  made 
$1500  as  his  first  year's  profit. 

Erelong  Owen  ceased  manufacturing  upon  his  own 
account,  and  became  superintendent  of  a  Man- 
chester cotton  mill,  owned  by  a  Mr.  Drinkwater,  and 
employing  some  five  hundred  work  people.  He  was 
a  most  progressive  man,  always  ready  to  introduce 
new  machinery,  and  to  embark  upon  new  experiments, 
with  a  view  to  improving  the  quality  of  the  product.1 
In  this  he  was  so  successful  that  the  goods  manu- 
factured at  the  Drinkwater  mill  soon  commanded 
a  fifty  per  cent  advance  above  the  regular  market 
prices.  Drinkwater,  delighted  at  results  like  these, 
made  Owen  his  partner.  Thus  when  he  was  barely 
twenty  years  of  age,  Owen  had  secured  an  eminent 
position  among  the  cotton  manufacturers  of  his 


1  For  instance,  he  so  improved  the  machinery  and  increased  the 
fineness  of  the  threads  that,  instead  of  spinning  seventy-five  thousand 
yards  of  yarn  to  the  pound  of  cotton,  he  spun  two  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand !  At  that  time  a  pound  of  cotton,  which  in  its  raw  state 
was  worth  $1.25,  became  worth  $50  when  spun. — Life  of  Robert 
Owen,  Philadelphia,  1866. — Anonymous. 


ROBERT  OWEN  AND  THE   UTOPIAN   SPIRIT         29 
I 

time.  It  is  interesting  to  recall  that  in  the  same 
year,  1791,  Owen  used  the  first  cotton  ever  brought 
into  England  from  the  United  States.  "American 
Sea  Island  cotton,"  as  it  was  called,  from  the  fact 
that  it  was  then  grown  only  upon  the  islands  near 
the  southern  coast  of  the  United  States,  was  not  be- 
lieved to  be  of  any  value  for  manufacture,  on  account, 
chiefly,  of  its  poor  color.  But  when  a  cotton  broker 
named  Spear  received  three  hundred  pounds  of  it 
from  an  American  planter,  with  the  request  that  he 
would  get  some  competent  spinner  to  test  it,  he 
applied  to  Owen,  who,  with  characteristic  readiness, 
undertook  the  test,  and  succeeded  in  making  a  much 
finer  product  than  had  hitherto  been  made  from  the 
French  cotton,  though  inferior  to  it  in  color.  That 
was  the  first  introduction  of  American  cotton,  des- 
tined soon  to  furnish  English  cotton  mills  with  the 
greater  part  of  their  raw  material. 

Owen  did  not  long  remain  with  Mr.  Drinkwater. 
He  accepted  another  profitable  partnership  in  Man- 
chester, and  it  was  at  this  time  that  he  became  active 
in  social  reform  work.  As  a  member  of  an  impor- 
tant literary  and  philosophical  society,  he  was 
thrown  much  into  the  company  of  men  distinguished 
in  all  walks  of  life,  and  here  he  began  that  agitation 
which  led  to  the  passing  of  the  very  first  factory  act 
of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  in  1802.  The  suffering  of  the 
children  moved  his  great  humane  heart  to  boundless 


30  SOCIALISM 

pity.  He  well  knew  that  his  own  wealth  and  the 
wealth  of  his  fellows  had  been  purchased  at  a  terrible 
cost  in  child  life.  He  was  only  a  philanthropist  as 
yet;  he  saw  only  the  pitiful  waste  of  life  involved, 
and  sought  to  impress  men  of  wealth  with  what  he 
felt. 

On  the  first  day  of  the  nineteenth  century,  Owen 
began  his  wonderful  New  Lanark  career,  which 
attracted  universal  attention,  and  was  destined  to 
lead  him  to  those  social  innovations  which  won  for 
him  the  title  of  "Father  of  Modern  Socialism." 
We  have  already  seen  what  the  conditions  were  in 
the  "model  factory"  when  Owen  assumed  con- 
trol. Here  all  his  influence  was  directed  to  the 
task  of  ameliorating  the  condition  of  his  employees. 
He  shortened  the  hours  of  labor,  introduced  sanitary 
reforms,  protected  the  work  people  against  the  ex- 
ploitation of  traders  through  the  vicious  credit  sys- 
tem by  opening  a  store  and  supplying  them  with 
goods  at  cost,  and  established  infant  schools,  the 
first  of  their  kind,  for  the  care  and  education  of  chil- 
dren from  two  years  of  age  upward.  Still,  the 
workers  themselves  were  suspicious  of  this  man 
who,  so  different  from  other  employers,  was  zealous 
in  doing  things  for  them.  He  really  knew  nothing 
of  the  -working  class,  and  it  never  had  occurred  to 
him  that  they  might  do  anything  for  themselves. 
New  Lanark  under  Owen  was,  to  use  the  phrase 


ROBERT  OWEN   AND  THE  UTOPIAN   SPIRIT         31 

which  Mr.  Ghent  has  adopted  from  Fourier,  "a  be- 
nevolent feudalism."  Owen  complains  pathetically, 
"Yet  the  work  people  were  systematically  opposed  to 
every  change  which  I  proposed,  and  did  whatever 
they  could  to  frustrate  my  object."  * 

But  a  time  came  when  Owen  had  the  necessary 
opportunity  to  win  their  affection  —  and  he  em- 
braced it.  In  1806  the  United  States,  in  conse- 
quence of  a  diplomatic  rupture  with  England,  placed 
an  embargo  upon  the  shipment  of  raw  cotton  to  that 
country.  Everywhere  mills  were  shut  down,  and 
there  was  the  utmost  distress  in  consequence.  The 
New  Lanark  mills,  in  common  with  most  others, 
were  shut  down  for  four  months,  during  which  time 
Owen  paid  every  worker  his  or  her  wages  in  full,  at 
a  cost  of  over  $35,000.  Forever  afterward  he  en- 
joyed the  love  and  trust  of  his  work  people.  In 
spite  of  all  this  expenditure  upon  purely  philan- 
thropic work,  the  mills  yielded  an  enormous  profit. 
But  Owen  was  constantly  in  conflict  with  his  partners, 
who  sought  to  restrict  him  in  his  efforts,  with  the 
result  that  he  was  compelled  again  and  again  to 
change  partners,  always  securing  their  interests  and 
returning  them  big  profits  upon  their  investments,  un- 
til finally,  in  1829,  he  left  New  Lanark  altogether. 
During  twenty-nine  years  he  had  carried  on  the 
business  with  splendid  commercial  success  and  at 

1  Autobiography. 


32  SOCIALISM 

the  same  time  attracted  universal  attention  to  it 
as  the  theater  of  the  greatest  experiments  in  social 
regeneration  the  world  had  ever  known.  Every  year 
thousands  of  persons  from  all  parts  of  the  world, 
many  of  them  statesmen  and  representatives  of  the 
crowned  heads  of  Europe,  visited  New  Lanark  .to 
study  those  experiments,  and  never  were  they  seriously 
criticised  or  their  success  challenged.  Had  Owen's 
life  ended  here,  he  must  have  taken  rank  in  history 
as  one  of  the  truly  great  men  of  the  nineteenth 
century. 

IV 

Let  us  now  consider  briefly  the  forces  which  led 
this  gentle  philanthropist  onward  to  the  goal  of  Com- 
munism. In  the  first  place,  his  experiences  at  New 
Lanark  had  convinced  him  that  human  character  de- 
pends in  large  part  upon,  and  is  shaped  by,  environ- 
ment. Others  before  Owen  had  perceived  this,  but 
he  must  ever  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  pioneers  of 
the  idea,  among  the  first  to  give  it  definite  form  and 
to  demonstrate  its  truth.  In  the  first  of  those  won- 
derful Essays  on  the  Formation  of  Human  Character, 
in  which  Owen  recounts  the  results  of  his  New  Lan- 
ark system  of  education,  he  says,  "Any  general  char- 
acter from  the  best  to  the  worst,  from  the  most  igno- 
rant to  the  most  enlightened,  may  be  given  to  any 
community,  even  to  the  world  at  large,  by  the  ap- 


ROBERT  OWEN  AND  THE   UTOPIAN   SPIRIT         33 

plication  of  proper  means ;  which  means  are  to  a  great 
extent  at  the  command  and  under  the  control  of 
those  who  have  influence  hi  the  affairs  of  men."  To- 
day this  doctrine  does  not  seem  to  us  sensational 
or  strange;  it  might  be  promulgated  in  any  one  of 
our  fashionable  churches,  without  exciting  more 
than  a  languid  passing  interest.  But  in  Owen's 
tune  it  was  quite  otherwise.  Such  a  doctrine  struck 
at  the  very  roots  of  all  that  the  church  stood  for,  and 
brought  much  bitter  denunciation  upon  the  heads  of 
its  promulgators.  A  poet  of  the  period,  in  a  poem 
dedicated  to  Owen,  aptly  expresses  the  doctrine:  — 

"  We  are  the  creatures  of  external  things, 
Acting  on  inward  organs,  and  are  made 
To  think  and  do  whate'er  our  tutors  please. 
What  folly,  then,  to  punish  or  reward 
For  deeds  o'er  which  we  never  held  a  curb ! 
What  woeful  ignorance,  to  teach  the  crime 
And  then  chastise  the  pupil  for  his  guilt ! "  * 

Owen  had  realized  other  things  at  New  Lanark 
besides  ^the  profound  truth  that  man's  character  is 
formed  largely  by  his  environment  Starting  out 
with  no  other  purpose  than  to  ameliorate  the  condi- 
tions of  his  work  people,  he  came,  at  last,  to  recog- 
nize that  he  could  never  do  for  them  the  essential 
thing,  —  secure  their  real  liberty.  "The  people  were 

1  The  Force  of  Circumstances,  a  poem,  by  John  Garwood,  Birming- 
ham, 1808. 


34  SOCIALISM 

slaves  of  my  mercy,"  1  he  writes.  He  saw,  though 
but  dimly  at  first,  that  no  man  could  be  free  who 
depended  upon  another  for  the  right  to  earn  his 
bread,  no  matter  how  good  the  bread  master  might 
be.  The  hopelessness  of  expecting  reform  from  the 
manufacturers  themselves  was  borne  upon  his  mind 
in  many  ways.  First  of  all,  there  was  the  incessant 
conflict  with  his  associates,  who,  while  representing 
the  noblest  and  best  elements  of  the  manufacturing 
class,  still  failed  to  comprehend  the  spirit  of  all 
Owen's  work,  his  profound  belief  in  the  inherent 
right  of  every  child  to  the  opportunities  of  sound 
physical,  mental,  and  moral  culture.  Then  there 
was  the  bitter  hostility  of  those  of  his  class  who  had 
no  sympathy  whatever  with  him. 

The  Luddite  riots  of  1810-1811  awakened  England 
to  the  importance  of  the  labor  question,  and  Owen, 
who  since  1805  had  been  devoting  much  time  to 
its  study,  secured  a  much  wider  audience,  and  a 
much  more  serious  hearing  than  ever  before.  Then 
came  the  frightful  misery  of  1815,  due  to  the  crisis 
which  the  end  of  the  great  war  produced.  Every- 
one seemed  to  think  that  when  the  war  was  over 
and  peace  was  restored,  there  would  be  a  tremendous 
increase  in  prosperity.  What  happened  was  pre- 
cisely the  opposite;  for  a  time  at  least  things  were 

1  Quoted  by  F.  Engels,  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific,  page  22 
(English  edition,  1892). 


ROBERT  OWEN  AND  THE  UTOPIAN   SPIRIT         35 

immeasurably  worse  than  before.  Owen,  more 
clearly  than  any  other  man  of  the  time,  explained  the 
real  nature  of  the  crisis.  The  war  had  given  an 
important  spur  to  industry  and  encouraged  many 
new  inventions  and  chemical  discoveries.  "The  war 
was  the  great  and  most  extravagant  customer  of 
farmers,  manufacturers,  and  other  producers  of 
wealth,  and  many  during  this  period  became  very 
wealthy.  .  .  .  And  on  the  day  on  which  peace 
was  signed,  the  great  customer  of  the  producers  died, 
and  prices  fell  as  the  demand  diminished,  until  the 
prime  cost  of  the  articles  required  for  war  could  not 
be  obtained.  .  .  .  Barns  and  farmyards  were  full, 
warehouses  loaded,  and  such  was  our  artificial  state 
of  society  that  this  very  superabundance  of  wealth 
was  the  sole  cause  of  the  existing  distress.  Burn  the 
stock  in  the  farmyards  and  warehouses,  and  prosperity 
would  immediately  recommence,  in  the  same  manner  as 
if  the  war  had  continued.  This  want  of  demand  at 
remunerating  prices  compelled  the  master  producers 
to  consider  what  they  could  do  to  diminish  the 
amount  of  their  productions  and  the  cost  of  pro- 
ducing until  these  surplus  stocks  could  be  taken  out 
of  the  market.  To  effect  these  results,  every  econ- 
omy in  producing  was  resorted  to,  and  men  being 
more  expensive  machines  for  producing  than  mechan- 
ical and  chemical  inventions  and  discoveries  so  ex- 
tensively brought  into  action  during  the  war,  the 


36  SOCIALISM 

men  were  discharged  and  the  machines  were  made 
to  supersede  them  —  while  the  numbers  of  the  un- 
employed were  increased  by  the  discharge  of  men 
from  the  army  and  navy.  Hence  the  great  distress 
for  want  of  work  among  all  classes  whose  labor  was 
so  much  in  demand  while  the  war  continued.  This 
increase  of  mechanical  and  chemical  power  was  con- 
tinually diminishing  the  demand  for,  and  value  of, 
manual  labor,  and  would  continue  to  do  so,  and 
would  effect  great  changes  throughout  society."  * 

In  this  statement  there  are  several  points  worthy 
of  attention.  In  the  first  place,  the  analysis  of  the 
crisis  of  1815  is  very  like  the  later  analyses  of  com- 
mercial crises  of  the  Marxists;  secondly,  the  antag- 
onism of  class  interests  is  clearly  developed,  as  far 
as  the  basic  interests  of  the  employers  and  their  em- 
ployees are  concerned.  The  former,  in  order  to  con- 
serve their  interests,  have  to  dismiss  the  workers, 
thus  forcing  them  into  direst  poverty;  thirdly,  the 
conflict  between  manual  and  machine  labor  is  frankly 
stated.  Owen's  studies  were  leading  him  from  mere 
philanthropism  to  Socialism. 

During  the  height  of  the  distress  of  1815,  Owen 
called  together  a  large  number  of  cotton  manufac- 
turers at  a  conference,  which  was  held  in  Glasgow, 
to  consider  the  state  of  the  cotton  trade  and  the  pre- 

1  Quoted  by  H.  M.  Hyndman,  The  Economics  of  Socialism,  page 
150. 


ROBERT   OWEN   AND   THE   UTOPIAN   SPIRIT          37 

vailing  distress.  He  proposed,  (1)  that  they  should 
petition  parliament  for  the  repeal  of  the  revenue 
tariff  on  raw  cotton;  (2)  that  they  should  call  upon 
parliament  to  shorten  the  hours  of  labor  in  the  cotton 
mills  by  legislative  enactment,  and  otherwise  seek 
to  improve  the  condition  of  the  working  people. 
The  first  proposition  was  carried  with  unanimity, 
but  the  second,  and  to  Owen  the  most  important, 
did  not  even  secure  a  seconder.1  The  spirit  in  which 
he  faced  the  manufacturers  is  best  seen  in  the  follow- 
ing extract  from  the  address  delivered  by  him  at 
this  conference,  with  copies  of  which  he  afterward 
literally  deluged  the  kingdom:  — 

"True,  indeed,  it  is  that  the  main  pillar  and  prop 
of  the  political  greatness  and  prosperity  of  our  coun- 
try is  a  manufacture  which,  as  now  carried  on,  is 
destructive  of  the  health,  morals,  and  social  comfort 
of  the  mass  of  people  engaged  in  it.  It  is  only  since 
the  introduction  of  the  cotton  trade  that  children, 
at  an  age  before  they  had  acquired  strength  or  men- 
tal instruction,  have  been  forced  into  cotton  mills,  — 
those  receptacles,  hi  too  many  instances,  for  living, 
human  skeletons,  almost  disrobed  of  intellect,  where 
as  the  business  is  often  now  conducted,  they  linger 
out  a  few  years  of  miserable  existence,  acquiring 
every  bad  habit  which  they  may  disseminate  through- 

1  The  New  Harmony  Communities,  by  George  Browning  Lock- 
wood  (1902),  page  71. 


38  SOCIALISM 

out  society.  It  is  only  since  the  introduction  of  this 
trade  that  children  and  even  grown  people  were 
required  to  labor  more  than  twelve  hours  in  a  day, 
not  including  the  time  allotted  for  meals.  It  is  only 
since  the  introduction  of  this  trade  that  the  sole 
recreation  of  the  laborer  is  to  be  found  in  the  pot- 
house or  ginshop,  and  it  is  only  since  the  introduc- 
tion of  this  baneful  trade  that  poverty,  crime,  and 
misery  have  made  rapid  and  fearful  strides  through- 
out the  community. 

"Shall  we  then  go  unblushingly,  and  ask  the  legis- 
lators of  our  country  to  pass  legislative  acts  to  sanc- 
tion and  increase  this  trade  —  to  sign  the  death 
warrants  of  the  strength,  morals,  and  happiness  of 
thousands  of  our  fellow-creatures,  and  not  attempt 
to  propose  corrections  for  the  evils  which  it  creates? 
If  such  shall  be  your  determination,  I,  for  one,  will 
not  join  in  the  application,  —  no,  I  will,  with  all  the 
faculties  I  possess,  oppose  every  attempt  made  to 
extend  the  trade  that,  except  in  name,  is  more  inju- 
rious to  those  employed  in  it  than  is  the  slavery  hi 
the  West  Indies  to  the  poor  negroes;  for  deeply  as 
I  am  interested  in  the  cotton  manufacture,  highly 
as  I  value  the  extended  political  power  of  my  country, 
yet  knowing  as  I  do,  from  long  experience  both  here 
and  in  England,  the  miseries  which  this  trade,  as  it 
is  now  conducted,  inflicts  on  those  to  whom  it  gives 
employment,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say:  Perish  the 


ROBERT  OWEN  AND  THE   UTOPIAN   SPIRIT         39 

cotton  trade,  perish  even  the  political  superiority  of 
our  country,  if  it  depends  on  the  cotton  trade,  rather 
than  that  they  shall  be  upheld  by  the  sacrifice  of  every- 
thing valuable  in  life."  l 

This  conference  had  undoubtedly  much  to  do 
with  Owen's  subsequent  acceptance  of  the  Socialist 
ideal,  and  it  is  probable,  as  one  of  his  biographers 
has  hinted,  that  the  change  of  the  approbation  of 
the  governing  class  to  reprobation  really  dates  from 
that  outspoken  attack  upon  the  economic  interests 
of  the  growing  manufacturing  industry  rather  than 
from  the  fierce  onslaught  upon  religion,  or,  more 
correctly,  religious  hypocrisy,  in  the  following  year. 
Be  that  how  it  may,  the  fact  is  that  by  1815  Owen 
was  pretty  much  of  a  Socialist,  though  he  did  not 
declare  himself  one  until  some  years  later. 

In  1817  he  proposed  to  the  government  the  estab- 
lishment of  communistic  villages,  as  the  best  means 
of  remedying  the  terrible  distress  which  prevailed 
at  that  time.  Henceforth,  Owen  is  the  apostle  of 
Communism,  or  as  he  later  preferred  to  say,  Social- 
ism. His  ideal  is  a  cooperative  world,  with  perfect 
equality  between  the  sexes.  He  had  so  completely 
demonstrated  to  his  own  mind  that  private  prop- 
erty was  incompatible  with  social  well-being,  every 
month  of  his  experience  at  New  Lanark  had  so  deeply 

1  Quoted  by  Lockwood,  The  New  Harmony  Communities,  pages 
71-72. 


40  SOCIALISM 

impressed  him  with  the  conviction  that  to  make  it 
possible  for  all  men  to  live  equally  happy  and  moral 
lives  they  must  have  equal  material  resources  and 
conditions  of  life,  that  he  could  not  understand  why 
it  had  never  occurred  to  others  before  him.  He 
regarded  himself  as  one  inspired,  or  as  an  inventor 
of  a  new  system,  and  believed  that  it  was  only  neces- 
sary for  him  to  demonstrate  the  truth  of  his  conten- 
tions, argumentatively  and  in  practice,  to  convert  the 
world.  He  conducted  a  tremendous  propaganda, 
by  means  of  newspapers,  pamphlets,  lectures,  and 
debates,  and  above  all,  established  various  commu- 
nities in  this  country  *  and  in  England.  With  sub- 
lime faith  and  unbounded  courage,  he  kept  on  in  the 
face  of  bitter  opposition  and  repeated  failure.  And 
to  this  day,  the  story  of  the  New  Harmony  experi- 
ment, despite  the  fact  that  it  was  short-lived,  and 
that  it  failed,  is  full  of  inspiration  for  him  who  would 
give  his  life  to  the  redemption  of  the  world  from  the 
cruel  grasp  of  private  greed. 

Owen's  communities  failed,  and  the  world  has  long 
since  written  the  word  "Failure"  against  his  name. 
But  what  a  splendid  failure  it  was!  Standing  by 
his  grave  one  day,  in  the  picturesque  little  church- 
yard at  Newton,  by  a  bend  of  the  winding  river, 
not  far  from  the  ruins  of  the  ancient  castle  home 

1  For  a  good  account  of  these  communities,  see  Lockwood's  book, 
The  New  Harmony  Communities,  already  quoted. 


ROBERT   OWEN  AND  THE   UTOPIAN   SPIRIT          41 

of  the  famous  deist,  Lord  Herbert,  I  said  to  an  old 
Welsh  laborer,  "But  his  life  was  a  failure,  was  it 
not?"  The  old  man  gazed  awhile  at  the  grave,  and 
then  with  a  voice  of  reverence  and  love,  replied,  "I 
suppose  it  was,  sir,  as  the  world  goes;  a  failure  like 
Jesus  Christ's.  But  I  don't  call  it  failure,  sir.  He 
established  infant  schools;  he  founded  the  great 
Cooperative  movement;  he  helped  to  make  the 
trade  unions;1  he  worked  for  peace  between  two 
great  countries.  His  Socialism  has  not  been  realized 
yet,  nor  yet  has  Christ's  —  but  it  will  come!"  As 
I  turned  and  clasped  the  old  man's  hand,  the  sun 
emerged  from  the  clouds  and  bathed  the  grave  with 
glory. 


Owen  was  not  the  only  builder  of  Utopias  in  his 
time.  In  the  same  year  that  Owen  launched  his 
New  Harmony  experiment,  there  died  in  Paris  another 
dreamer  of  social  Utopias,  a  gentle  mystic,  Henry  de 
Saint-Simon,  and  in  1837,  the  year  of  Owen's  third 
Socialist  congress,  another  great  Utopist  died  in  the 
French  capital,  Charles  Fourier.  Each  of  these  con- 
tributed something  to  the  development  of  the  theories 
of  Socialism,  each  has  a  legitimate  place  in  the  history 

1  Owen  presided  at  the  first  organized  Trade  Union  Congress  in 
England. 


42  SOCIALISM 

of  the  Socialist  movement.  But  this  little  work  is  not 
intended  to  give  the  history  of  Socialism.1  I  have  taken 
one  only  of  the  three  great  Utopists,  as  representative 
of  them  all :  one  who  seems  to  me  to  be  much  nearer 
to  the  later  scientific  movement  pioneered  by  Marx 
and  Engels  than  any  of  the  others.  In  the  Socialism 
of  Owen,  we  have  Utopian  Socialism  at  its  best. 

What  distinguishes  the  Utopists  from  their  scientific 
followers  has  been  clearly  stated  by  Engels  in  the 
following  luminous  passage:  "One  thing  is  common 
to  all  three.  Not  one  of  them  appears  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  interests  of  that  proletariat  which 
historical  development  had  .  .  .  produced.  Like  the 
French  philosophers,2  they  do  not  claim  to  emancipate 
a  particular  class  to  begin  with,  but  all  humanity  at 
once.  Like  them,  they  wish  to  bring  in  the  kingdom 
of  reason  and  eternal  justice,  but  this  kingdom,  as 
they  see  it,  is  as  far  as  heaven  from  earth  from  that 
of  the  French  philosophers. 

"For,  to  our  three  social  reformers,  the  bourgeois 
world,  based  upon  the  principles  of  these  philosophers, 
is  quite  as  irrational  and  unjust,  and,  therefore,  finds 
its  way  to  the  dust  hole  quite  as  readily,  as  feudalism 
and  all  the  earlier  stages  of  society.  If  pure  reason 
and  justice  had  not,  hitherto,  ruled  the  world,  this 

1  For  the  history  of  these  and  other  Utopian  Socialisms,  see  Professor 
Ely's  French  and  German  Socialism  (1883) ;  also  M.  Hillquit's  History 
of  Socialism  in  the  United  States  (1903). 

3  The  Encyclopaedists. 


ROBERT  OWEN  AND  THE  UTOPIAN   SPIRIT         43 

has  been  the  case  only  because  men  have  not  rightly 
understood  them.  What  was  wanted  was  the  in- 
dividual man  of  genius,  who  has  now  arisen  and  who 
understands  the  truth.  That  he  has  now  arisen,  that 
the  truth  has  now  been  clearly  understood,  is  not  an 
inevitable  event,  following  of  necessity  in  the  chain 
of  historical  development,  but  a  mere  happy  acci- 
dent. He  might  just  as  well  have  been  born  five 
hundred  years  earlier,  and  might  then  have  spared 
humanity  five  hundred  years  of  error,  strife,  and 
suffering."  * 

Neither  of  these  great  Utopists  had  anything  like 
the  conception  of  social  evolution  determined  by 
economic  conditions  and  the  resulting  conflicts  of 
economic  classes  which  constitutes  the  base  of  the 
philosophy  of  the  scientific  Socialists.  Each  of  them 
had  some  faint  comprehension  of  isolated  facts,  but 
neither  of  them  developed  his  knowledge  very  far,  nor 
could  these  facts  appear  to  them  as  correlated  by  Marx. 
Saint-Simon,  as  we  know,  recognized  the  class  struggle 
in  the  French  Revolution,  and  saw  in  the  Reign  of 
Terror  only  the  reign  of  the  non-possessing  masses ; a 
he  saw,  too,  that  the  political  question  was  funda- 
mentally an  economic  question,  declaring  that  poli- 
tics is  the  science  of  production,  and  prophesying 
that  politics  would  become  absorbed  by  economics.8 

l  Engels,  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific,  pages  6-7. 
8  Idem,  page  15.  *  Idem. 


44  SOCIALISM 

Fourier,  we  also  know,  applied  the  principle  of  evolu- 
tion to  society.  He  divided  the  history  of  society 
into  four  great  epochs  —  savagery,  barbarism,  the 
patriarchate,  and  civilization.1  But  just  as  Saint- 
Simon  failed  to  grasp  the  significance  of  the  class 
conflict  and  its  relation  to  the  fundamental  character 
of  economic  institutions  which  he  dimly  realized,  so 
Fourier  failed  to  grasp  the  significance  of  the  evolu- 
tionary process  which  he  described,  and,  like  Saint- 
Simon,  he  halted  upon  the  brink,  so  to  speak,  of  an 
important  discovery.  His  concept  of  social  evolution 
meant  little  or  nothing  to  him,  and  possessed  little 
more  than  an  academic  interest.  And  the  other  great 
Utopist,  Owen,  realized  in  a  practical  manner  that 
the  industrial  problem  was  a  class  conflict.  Not  only 
had  he  found  in  1815 2  that  pity  was  powerless  to 
move  the  hearts  of  his  fellow- manufacturers  when 
their  class  interests  were  concerned,  but  later,  in 
1818,  when  he  went  to  present  his  famous  memorial  • 
to  the  Congress  of  Sovereigns  at  Aix-la-Chapelle, 
he  had  another  lesson  of  the  same  kind.  At  Frank- 
fort, Germany,  he  tarried  on  his  way  to  the  Congress, 
and  was  invited  to  attend  a  great  dinner  to  meet  the 
Secretary  of  the  Congress,  M.  Gentz,  a  famous  diplo- 
mat in  his  day,  "who  enjoyed  the  full  confidence  of 
the  leading  despots  of  Europe."  After  Owen  had  out- 

1  Engels,  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific,  page  18. 

2  See  page  37. 


ROBERT  OWEN  AND  THE   UTOPIAN   SPIRIT          45 

lined  his  schemes  for  social  amelioration,  M.  Gentz 
was  asked  for  his  reply,  and  Owen  tells  us  that  the 
diplomat  replied,  "We  know  very  well  that  what  you 
say  is  true,  but  how  could  we  govern  the  masses, 
if  they  were  wealthy,  and  so,  independent  of  us?"  l 
Lord  Lauderdale,  too,  had  exclaimed,  "Nothing  [i.e. 
than  Owen's  plans]  could  be  more  complete  for  the 
poor  and  working  classes,  bui  what  mil  become  ofus?"* 
Scattered  throughout  his  writings  and  speeches  are 
numerous  evidences  of  the  fact  that  Owen  at  times 
recognized  the  class  antagonisms  in  the  industrial 
problem,3  but  to  him  also  the  germ  of  a  profound 
truth  meant  nothing.  He  saw  only  an  isolated  fact, 
and  made  no  attempt  to  discover  its  meaning  or  to 
relate  it  to  his  teaching. 

Each  of  the  three  men  regarded  himself  as  the 
discoverer  of  the  truth  which  should  redeem  the 
world;  each  devoted  himself  with  magnificent  faith 
and  heroic  courage  to  his  task;  each  failed  to  realize 
his  hopes ;  and  each  left  behind  him  faithful  disciples 
and  followers,  confident  that  the  day  must  come  at 
last  when  the  suffering  and  disinherited  of  earth 
will  be  able  to  say,  in  Owen's  dying  words:  — 

"Relief  has  come." 

f 

1  Autobiography. 

2  Idem. 

3  See,  for  instance,  The  Revolution  in  Mind  and  Practice,  by  Robert 
Owen,  pages  21-22. 


CHAPTER  in 

THE  "COMMUNIST  MANIFESTO"  AND  THE  SCIEN- 
TIFIC SPIRIT 


THE  Communist  Manifesto  has  been  called  the 
birth  cry  of  the  modern  scientific  Socialist  move- 
ment. When  it  was  written,  at  the  beginning  of 
1848,  little  remained  of  those  great  social  movements 
which  in  the  early  part  of  the  century  had  inspired 
the  world  with  high  hopes  of  social  regeneration  and 
rekindled  the  beacon  fires  of  faith  in  the  world.  The 
Saint-Simonians  had,  as  an  organized  body,  dis- 
appeared; the  Fourierists  were  a  dwindling  sect, 
discouraged  by  the  failure  of  the  one  great  trial  of 
their  system,  the  famous  Brook  Farm  experiment  in 
the  United  States;  the  Owenite  movement  had  never 
recovered  from  the  failures  of  the  experiments  at  New 
Harmony  and  elsewhere,  and  had  lost  much  of  its 
identity  through  the  multiplicity  of  interests  em- 
braced in  Owen's  propaganda.  Chartism  and  Trades 

46 


THE  "  COMMUNIST  MANIFESTO  "  47 

Unionism  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Cooperative 
Societies  on  the  other,  had,  between  them,  absorbed 
most  of  the  vital  elements  of  the  Owenite  move- 
ment. 

There  was  a  multitude  of  what  Engels  calls  "social 
quacks,"  but  the  really  great  social  movements, 
Owenism  in  England,  and  Fourierism  in  France,  were 
utterly  demoralized  and  rapidly  dwindling  away. 
One  thing  only  served  to  keep  the  flame  of  hope  alive 
—  "the  crude,  rough-hewn,  purely  instinctive  sort  of 
Communism"  of  the  workers.  This  Communism  of 
the  working  class  differed  in  its  essential  features 
from  the  Socialism  of  Fourierism  and  Owenism. 
It  was  based  upon  the  "rights  of  labor,"  and  its 
appeal  was,  primarily,  to  the  laborer.  Its  exponents 
were  Wilhelm  Weitling  in  Germany,  and  ^tienne 
Cabet  in  France. 

Weitling  was  a  man  of  the  people.  He  was  born 
in  Magdeburg,  Germany,  in  1808,  the  illegitimate 
child  of  a  humble  woman  and  her  soldier  lover.  He 
became  a  tailor,  and,  as  was  the  custom  in  Germany 
at  that  time,  traveled  extensively  during  his  appren- 
ticeship. In  1838  his  first  important  work,  The 
World  as  it  Is,  and  as  it  Might  Be,  appeared,  published 
in  Paris  by  a  secret  revolutionary  society  consisting 
mainly  of  German  workingmen  of  the  "Young 
Germany"  movement.  In  this  work,  Weitling  first 
expounded  at  length  his  communistic  theories.  It 


48  SOCIALISM 

is  claimed  *  that  his  conversion  to  Communism  was 
the  result  of  the  chance  placing  of  a  Fourierist  paper 
upon  the  table  of  a  Berlin  coffeehouse,  by  Albert 
Brisbane,  the  brilliant  American  friend  and  disciple 
of  Fourier,  his  first  exponent  in  the  English  language. 
This  may  well  be  true,  for,  as  we  shall  see,  Weitling's 
views  are  mainly  based  upon  those  of  the  great  French 
Utopist.  In  1842  Weitling  published  his  best-known 
work,  the  book  upon  which  his  literary  fame  chiefly 
rests,  The  Guaranties  of  Harmony  and  Freedom.  This 
work  at  once  attracted  wide  attention,  and  gave 
Weitling  a  foremost  place  among  the  writers  of  the 
time  in  the  affections  of  the  educated  workers.  It 
was  an  elaboration  of  the  theories  contained  in  his 
earlier  book.  Morris  Hillquit 2  thus  describes  Weit- 
ling's  philosophy  and  method:  — 

"In  his  social  philosophy,  Weitling  may  be  said  to 
have  been  the  connecting  link  between  primitive  and 
modern  Socialism.  In  the  main,  he  is  still  a  Utopian, 
and  his  writings  betray  the  unmistakable  influence 
of  the  early  French  Socialists.  In  common  with  all 
Utopians,  he  bases  his  philosophy  exclusively  upon 
moral  grounds.  Misery  and  poverty  are  to  him  but 
the  results  of  human  malice,  and  his  cry  is  for  'eternal 

1  Cf.  Social  Democracy  Red  Book,  edited  by  Frederic  Heath  (1900), 
page  79. 

2  History  of  Socialism  in  the  United  States,  by  Morris  Hillquit, 
pages   161-162. 


THE   "  COMMUNIST  MANIFESTO  "  49 

justice '  and  for  the  '  absolute  liberty  and  equality 
of  all  mankind.'  In  his  criticism  of  the  existing  order, 
he  leans  closely  on  Fourier,  from  whom  he  also  bor- 
rowed the  division  of  labor  into  three  classes  of  the 
Necessary,  Useful,  and  Attractive,  and  the  plan  of 
organization  of  '  attractive  industry/ 

"His  ideal  of  the  future  state  of  society  reminds  us 
of  the  Saint-Simonian  government  of  scientists.  The 
administration  of  affairs  of  the  entire  globe  is  to  be 
in  the  hands  of  the  three  greatest  authorities  on 
'philosophical  medicine,'  physics,  and  mechanics,  who 
are  to  be  ree'nf orced  by  a  number  of  subordinate  com- 
mittees. His  state  of  the  future  is  a  highly  central- 
ized government,  and  is  described  by  the  author  with 
the  customary  details.  Where  Weitling,  to  some 
extent,  approaches  the  conception  of  modern  Social- 
ism, is  in  his  recognition  of  class  distinctions  between 
employer  and  employee.  This  distinction  never 
amounted  to  a  conscious  indorsement  of  the  modern 
Socialist  doctrine  of  the  'class  struggle,'  but  his 
views  on  the  antagonism  between  the  'poor'  and  the 
'wealthy'  came  quite  close  to  it.  He  was  a  firm 
believer  in  labor  organizations  as  a  factor  in  develop- 
ing the  administrative  abilities  of  the  working  class; 
the  creation  of  an  independent  labor  party  was  one 
of  his  pet  schemes,  and  his  appeals  were  principally 
addressed  to  the  workingmen. 

"Unlike  most  of  his  predecessors  and  contempo- 


50  SOCIALISM 

raries,  Weitling  was  not  a  mere  critic;  he  was  an 
enthusiastic  preacher,  an  apostle  of  a  new  faith,  and 
his  writings  and  speeches  breathed  of  love  for  his 
fellow-men,  and  of  an  ardent  desire  for  their  happi- 
ness." 

fitienne  Cabet  was,  in  many  ways,  a  very  different 
type  of  man  from  Weitling,  yet  their  ideas  were  not 
so  dissimilar.  Cabet,  born  in  Dijon,  France,  hi  1788, 
was  the  son  of  a  fairly  prosperous  cooper,  and  re- 
ceived a  good  university  education.  He  studied  both 
medicine  and  law,  adopting  the  profession  of  the 
latter,  and  early  achieving  success  in  its  practice. 
He  took  a  leading  part  in  the  Revolution  of  1830  as 
a  member  of  the  "  Committee  of  Insurrection,"  and 
upon  the  accession  of  Louis  Phillipe  was  "rewarded" 
by  being  made  Attorney-General  for  Corsica.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  the  government  desired  to  remove 
Cabet  from  the  political  life  of  Paris,  quite  as  much 
as  to  reward  him  for  his  services  during  the  Revolu- 
tion ;  his  strong  radicalism,  combined  with  his  sturdy 
independence  of  character,  being  rightly  regarded  as 
dangerous  to  Louis  Phillipe's  regime.  His  reward, 
therefore,  took  the  form  of  practical  banishment. 
The  wily  advisers  of  Louis  Phillipe  gave  him  the 
gloved  hand.  But  the  best-laid  schemes  of  mice  and 
courtiers  "gang  oft  agley."  Cabet,  hi  Corsica,  joined 
the  radical  anti-administration  forces,  and  became 
a  thorn  hi  the  side  of  the  government.  He  was  re- 


THE   "  COMMUNIST  MANIFESTO"  51 

moved  from  office  and  returned  to  Paris,  whereupon 
the  citizens  of  Dijon,  his  native  town,  elected  him  as 
their  deputy  to  the  lower  chamber  in  1834.  Here  he 
continued  his  opposition  to  the  administration,  and 
was  at  last  tried  on  a  charge  of  lese  majestg,  and  given 
the  option  of  choosing  between  two  years'  imprison- 
ment or  five  years'  exile. 

Cabet  chose  exile,  and  took  up  his  residence  in 
England,  where  he  fell  under  the  influence  of  the 
Owen  agitation  and  became  a  convert  to  Owen's 
Socialistic  views.  During  this  time  of  exile,  too,  he 
became  acquainted  with  the  Utopia  of  Sir  Thomas 
More  and  was  fascinated  by  it.  The  idea  of  writing 
a  similar  work  of  fiction  to  propagate  Socialism  im- 
pressed itself  upon  his  mind,  and  he  wrote  a  "philo- 
sophical and  social  romance,"  entitled  Voyage  to 
Icaria,1  which  was  published  soon  after  his  return  to 
Paris,  in  1839.  In  this  novel  Cabet  follows  closely 
the  method  of  More,  and  describes  "Icaria"  as  "a 
Promised  Land,  an  Eden,  an  Elysium,  a  new  ter- 
restrial Paradise."  The  plot  of  the  book  is  simple  in 
the  extreme  and  its  literary  merit  is  far  from  being 
very  great.  The  writer  represents  that  he  met,  in 
London,  a  nobleman,  Lord  William  Carisdall,  who, 
having  by  chance  heard  of  Icaria  and  the  wonder- 
fully strange  customs  and  form  of  government  of  its 
inhabitants,  visited  the  country.  Lord  William  kept 

1  Voyage  en  Icarie. 


52  SOCIALISM 

a  journal,  in  which  he  described  all  that  he  saw  in  this 
wonderland.  It  is  this  journal,  we  are  told,  which 
the  traveler  had  permitted  to  be  published  through 
the  medium  of  his  friend,  and  under  his  editorial 
supervision.  The  first  part  of  the  book  contains  an 
attractive  account  of  the  cooperative  system  of  the 
Icarians,  their  communistic  government,  equality  of 
the  sexes,  and  high  standard  of  morality.  The  second 
part  is  devoted  to  an  account  of  the  history  of  Icaria, 
prior  to,  and  succeeding,  the  Revolution  of  1782, 
when  the  great  national  hero,  Icar,  established 
Communism. 

The  book  created  a  tremendous  furore  in  France. 
It  appealed  strongly  to  the  discontented  masses,  and 
it  is  said  that  by  1847  Cabet  had  no  less  than  four 
hundred  thousand  adherents  among  the  workers  of 
France.  It  is  possible,  cum  grano  salis,  to  accept  this 
statement  only  by  remembering  that  a  very  infini- 
tesimal proportion  of  these  were  adherents  in  the 
sense  of  being  ready  to  follow  his  leadership,  as  sub- 
sequent experience  showed.  Still,  the  effect  of  the 
book  was  tremendous,  and  it  served  to  fire  the  flag- 
ging zeal  of  those  workers  for  social  regeneration 
whose  hearts  must  otherwise  have  become  deadly 
sick  from  long-deferred  hopes. 

The  confluence  of  these  two  streams  of  Communist 
propaganda  represented  by  Weitling  and  Cabet  con- 
stituted the  real  Communist  "movement"  of  1840- 


THE  "COMMUNIST  MANIFESTO"  53 

1847.1  Its  organized  expression  was  the  Communist 
League,  a  secret  organization  with  its  headquarters 
in  London.  The  League  was  formed  in  Paris  in 
1836  by  German  refugees  and  traveling  workmen, 
and  seems  to  have  been  an  offspring  of  Mazzini's 
"Young  Europe"  agitation  of  1834.  At  different 
times  it  bore  the  names,  "League  of  the  Just," 
"League  of  the  Righteous,"  and,  finally,  "Communist 
League."  2  For  many  years  it  remained  a  mere  con- 
spiratory  society,  exclusively  German,  and  existed 
mainly  for  the  purpose  of  fostering  the  "Young  Ger- 
many" ideas.  Later  it  became  an  International 
Alliance  with  societies  in  many  parts  of  Europe. 
Thus  it  was  that,  in  1847,  the  League  in  Paris  wrote 
inviting  Karl  Marx,  who  was  at  that  time  in  Brus- 
sels,—  where,  in  accordance  with  an  understanding 
arrived  at  with  the  leaders  of  the  Paris  League  while 
he  was  in  that  city,  he  had  formed  a  similar  society  — 
to  join,  together  with  Friedrich  Engels,  the  inter- 
national organization,  and  promising  that  a  congress 
should  be  convened  in  London  at  an  early  date. 
Engels  was  in  Paris  at  that  tune,  and  was  probably 
responsible  for  the  step  taken  by  the  League  leaders. 
We  may,  hi  view  of  Engels'  after  career  as  the  poli- 
tician of  the  movement,  surmise  so  much.  Be  that 

1  F.  Engels,  Introduction  to  The  Communist  Manifesto,  page  5. 

2  E.  Belfort  Bax,  article  on  Friedrich  Engels,  in  Justice  (London), 
No.  606,  Vol.  XII,  August  24,  1895. 


54  SOCIALISM 

how  it  may,  the  reason  for  the  step,  the  object  of  the 
proposed  Congress,  is  quite  clear.  Marx  himself  has 
placed  it  beyond  dispute.  During  his  stay  in  Paris, 
he  and  Engels  had  discussed  the  position  of  the 
League  with  some  of  its  leaders,  and  he  had,  later, 
criticised  it  in  the  most  merciless  manner  in  his 
pamphlets.1  He  desired  a  revolutionary  working 
class  party  with  a  definite  aim  and  policy.  The 
leaders  of  the  League  who  agreed  with  him  in  this 
were  the  prime  movers  for  the  Congress,  which  was 
held  in  London,  in  November,  1847.  At  this  Con- 
gress, Marx  and  Engels  presented  their  views  at 
great  length,  and  outlined  the  principles  and  policy 
which  their  famous  pamphlet  later  made  familiar. 
Their  views  finding  much  favor,  as  was  perfectly 
natural  with  an  inchoate  mass  of  men  only  waiting 
for  leadership,  they  were  requested  to  prepare 
"a  complete  theoretical  and  working  programme" 
for  the  League.  This  took  the  form  of  the  Commu- 
nist Manifesto,  published  in  the  early  part  of  January, 
1848. 


II 


The  authors  of  the  Manifesto  were  men  of  great 
intellectual  gifts.  Either  of  them  alone  must  have 
won  fame;  together,  they  won  immortality.  Their 

1  Disclosures  about  the  Communists'  Process,  Herr  Vogt,  etc. 


THE  "COMMUNIST  MANIFESTO"  55 

lives,  from  the  date  of  their  first  meeting  in  Paris, 
in  1844,  to  the  death  of  Marx  almost  forty  years  later, 
in  1883,  are  inseparably  interwoven.  The  friendship 
of  Damon  and  Pythias  was  not  more  remarkable. 

Karl  Marx  was  born  in  1818,  on  the  fifth  day  of 
May,  at  Treves,  the  oldest  town  in  Germany,  dating 
back  to  Roman  times.1  His  father  was  a  Jewish  law- 
yer of  prominence  and  great  learning ;  his  mother,  the 
descendant  of  Hungarian  Jews  who  in  the  seventeenth 
century  had  settled  in  Holland.  On  his  father's 
side,  Marx  was  the  descendant  of  a  long  line  of  Rab- 
bis,2 unbroken  for  two  hundred  years  prior  to  his 
father.  The  true  family  name  was  Mordechia,  but 
that  was  abandoned  by  the  grandfather,  who  adopted 
the  name  of  Marx.  Either  shortly  before  the  birth 
of  Karl,  or  shortly  afterward,3  his  father  received 
notice  that  he  must  either  forego  his  official  position 
and  the  practice  of  his  profession,  or,  with  his  family, 
accept  the  Christian  faith  and  baptism.  Caring 
nothing  for  the  Hebrew  religion,  steeped  in  the  mate- 
rialism of  eighteenth-century  France,  and  an  ardent 

1  Liebknecht,  Karl  Marx  :  Biographical  Memoirs,  page  13. 

2  Thus  Franz  Mehring,  quoted  by  Kirkup,  History  of  Socialism, 
page    130 ;    thus,   also,    Dawson,   German  Socialism  and  Ferdinand 
Lassalle,  page  91  ;  but  Eleanor  Marx,  quoted  by  Liebknecht,  Memoirs 
of  Marx,  page  165,  seems  to  place  the  rabbinical  ancestry  on  the 
mother's  side. 

3  The  date  of  this  occurrence  is  not  known.     It  is  given  variously 
from  1814  to  1824.     In  the   Memoirs  Liebknecht  says  it  was   soon 
after  the  birth  of  Marx  (page  13),  but  on  page  164  he  quotes  Marx's 
daughter's  opinion  that  it  was  before  the  son's  birth. 


56  SOCIALISM 

disciple  of  Voltaire,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  submit  to 
the  decree,  and  he  and  his  family  were  baptized.  But 
the  son,  though  he  likewise  cared  nothing  for  the 
Jewish  religion,  never  forgave  the  slight  thus  put 
upon  his  race.  He  was  proud  of  being  a  Jew,  proud 
of  his  rabbinical  ancestry,  and  perhaps  owed  to  the 
latter  some  of  his  marvelous  gift  of  exposition. 

At  the  earnest  behest  of  his  father,  Marx  studied 
law  at  the  universities  of  Berlin  and  Bonn.  But 
"to  please  himself,"  he  studied  history  and  philosophy 
and  won  great  distinction  in  those  branches  of  learn- 
ing. He  graduated  in  1841,  as  a  Doctor  of  Philosophy, 
with  an  essay  on  the  philosophy  of  Epictetus,  and  it 
was  his  purpose  to  settle  at  Bonn  as  a  lecturer  in 
philosophy.  That  plan  was  abandoned,  partly  be- 
cause he  had  already  discovered  that  his  bent  w£s 
toward  political  activity,  and  partly  because  the 
Prussian  government  had  made  scholastic  independ- 
ence impossible.  Accordingly,  Marx  accepted  the 
offer  of  the  editorship  of  a  democratic  paper,  the 
Rhenish  Gazette,  in  which  he  waged  bitter,  relentless 
war  upon  the  government.  Time  after  time  the 
censors  interfered,  but  Marx  was  too  brilliant  a 
polemicist,  even  thus  early  in  his  career,  for  the 
censors.  So,  finally,  at  the  request  of  his  managers, 
Marx  retired.  They  hoped  thus  to  avoid  being  com- 
pelled to  suspend  the  publication,  but  in  vain;  the 
government  suppressed  the  paper  in  March,  1843. 


THE  "  COMMUNIST  MANIFESTO  "  57 

Soon  after  this  he  removed  to  Paris,  with  his  young 
bride  of  a  few  months,  Jenny  von  Westphalen,  the 
playmate  of  his  childhood.  The  Von  Westphalens 
were  of  the  nobility,  and  a  brother  of  Marx's  wife 
afterward  became  a  Prussian  Minister  of  State. 
The  elder  Von  Westphalen  was  half  Scotch,  related, 
on  his  maternal  side,  to  the  Argyles.  Liebknecht 
tells  an  amusing  story  of  how  Marx,  many  years  later, 
having  to  pawn  some  of  his  wife's  heirlooms,  especially 
some  heavy,  antique,  silver  spoons  which  bore  the 
Argyle  crest  and  motto,  "Truth  is  my  Maxim,"  nar- 
rowly escaped  being  arrested  on  suspicion  of  having 
robbed  the  Argyles ! 1  To  Paris,  then,  Marx  went, 
and  there  met,  among  others,  P.  J.  Proudhon,  Michael 
Bakunin,  Arnold  Ruge,  Heinrich  Heine,  and,  above 
all,  the  man  destined  to  be  his  very  alter  ego,  Friedrich 
Engels,  with  whom  he  had  already  had  some  corre- 
spondence. 2 

The  attainments  of  Engels  have  been  somewhat 
overshadowed  by  those  of  his  friend.  Born  at 
Barmen,  in  the  province  of  the  Rhine,  November 
28,  1820,  he  was  educated  in  the  Gymnasium  of  that 
city,  and,  after  serving  his  period  of  military  ser- 
vice, from  1837  to  1841,  was  sent,  in  the  early  part  of 
1842,  to  Manchester,  England,  to  look  after  a  cotton- 


1  Memoirs  of  Marx,  page  164. 

2  Karl  Kautsky,  article  on  F.  Engels,  Austrian  Labor  Almanac, 
1887. 


58  SOCIALISM 

spinning  business  of  which  his  father  was  principal 
owner.  Here  he  seems  to  have  at  once  begun  a 
thorough  investigation  of  social  and  industrial  con- 
ditions, the  results  of  which  are  contained  in  his 
book,  The  Condition  of  the  Working  Class  in  England 
in  1844,  which  remains  to  this  day  a  classic  presenta- 
tion of  the  social  and  industrial  life  of  the  period. 
From  the  very  first,  already  predisposed  as  we  know, 
he  sympathized  with  the  views  of  the  Chartists  and 
the  Owenite  Socialists.  He  became  friendly  with 
the  Chartist  leaders,  notably  with  Feargus  O'Connor, 
to  whose  paper,  The  Northern  Star,  he  became  a 
contributor.  He  also  became  friendly  with  Robert 
Owen  and  wrote  for  his  New  Moral  World.1  His 
linguistic  abilities  were  great ;  it  is  said  that  he  had 
thoroughly  mastered  no  less  than  ten  languages  —  a 
gift  which  helped  him  immensely  hi  his  literary  and 
political  association  with  Marx. 

When  the  two  men  met  for  the  first  time,  hi  1844, 
they  were  drawn  together  by  an  irresistible  impulse. 
They  were  kindred  spirits.  Marx,  during  his  stay  in 
Paris,  already  regarded  as  a  leader  of  radical  thought, 
had  fallen  under  the  influence  of  the  Saint-Simonians 
and  become  definitely  a  Socialist.  At  first  this  seems 
difficult  to  explain,  so  great  is  the  chasm  which  yawns 
between  the  "New  Christianity"  of  Saint-Simon  and 

1  E.  Belfort  Bax,  article  on  Friedrich  Engels  in  Justice  (London), 
No.  606,  Vol.  XII,  August  24,  1895. 


THE  "COMMUNIST  MANIFESTO"  59 

the  materialism  of  Marx.  Assuredly  there  could  be 
no  sympathy  for  the  religio-mysticism  of  the  French 
dreamer  on  the  part  of  the  German.  But  Marx, 
with  his  usual  penetration,  saw  in  Saint-Simonism 
the  hidden  germ  of  a  great  truth,  the  embryo  of  a 
profound  theory.  Saint-Simon,  as  we  have  seen,  had 
vaguely  indicated  the  two  ideas  which  were  after- 
ward to  be  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Marx-Engels 
Manifesto  —  the  antagonism  of  classes,  and  the 
economic  basis  of  political  institutions.  Not  only 
so,  but  Saint-Simon's  grasp  of  political  questions, 
instanced  by  his  advocacy,  hi  1815,  of  a  triple  alliance 
between  England,  France,  and  Germany,1  appealed 
to  Marx,  and  impressed  him  alike  by  its  fine  per- 
spicacity and  its  splendid  courage.  Engels,  in  whom, 
as  stated,  the  working-class  spirit  of  Chartism  and  the 
ideals  of  Owenism  were  blended,  found  in  Marx  a 
twin  spirit.  They  were,  indeed,  — 

"Two  souls  with  but  a  single  thought, 
Two  hearts  that  beat  as  one." 


Ill 


The  Communist  Manifesto  is  the  first  declaration 
of  an  International  Workingmen's  Party.  Its  fine 
peroration  is  a  call  to  the  workers  to  transcend  the 

1  See  F.  Engels,  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific,  page  16  (Lon- 
don edition,  1892). 


60  SOCIALISM 

petty  divisions  of  nationalism  and  sectarianism.  — 
"The  proletarians  have  nothing  to  lose  but  their 
chains.  They  have  a  world  to  win.  Workingmen 
of  all  countries  unite!"  These  concluding  phrases 
of  the  Manifesto  have  become  the  shibboleths  of 
millions.  They  are  repeated  with  fervor  by  the  dis- 
inherited workers  of  all  the  lands.  Even  in  China, 
lately  so  rudely  awakened  from  the  slumbering  peace 
of  the  centuries,  they  are  cried.  No  sentences  ever 
coined  in  the  mint  of  human  speech  have  held  such 
magic  power  over  such  large  numbers  of  men  and 
women  of  so  many  diverse  races.  As  a  literary 
production,  the  Manifesto  bears  the  unmistakable 
stamp  of  genius. 

But  it  is  not  as  literature  that  we  are  to  consider 
the  historic  document.  Its  importance  for  us  lies, 
not  in  its  form,  but  in  its  fundamental  principle. 
And  the  fundamental  principle,  the  essence  or  soul 
of  the  declaration,  is  contained  in  this  pregnant 
summary  by  Engels :  — 

"In  every  historical  epoch,  the  prevailing  mode  of 
economic  production  and  exchange,  and  the  social 
organization  necessarily  following  from  it,  form  the 
basis  upon  which  is  built  up,  and  from  which  alone  can 
be  explained,  the  political  and  intellectual  history  of 
that  epoch,  that  consequently  the  whole  history  of 
mankind  (since  primitive  tribal  society  holding  land 
in  common  ownership)  has  been  a  history  of  class 


THE  "COMMUNIST  MANIFESTO"  61 

struggles,  contests  between  exploiting  and  exploited, 
ruling  and  oppressed  classes."  1 

Thus  Engels  summarizes  the  philosophy  —  as 
apart  from  its  proposals  of  immediate  ameliorative 
measures  to  constitute  the  political  programme  of  the 
party  —  of  the  Manifesto,  and  the  basis  upon  which 
the  whole  superstructure  of  modern,  scientific  Social- 
ism rests.  This  is  the  materialistic,  or  economic, 
conception  of  history  which  distinguishes  scientific 
Socialism  from  all  the  Utopian  Socialisms  which 
preceded  it.  Socialism  is  henceforth  a  theory  of 
social  evolution,  not  a  scheme  of  world-building;  a 
spirit,  not  a  thing.  Thus  twelve  years  before  the 
appearance  of  The  Origin  of  Species,  nearly  twenty 
years  after  the  death  of  Lamarck,  the  authors  of 
the  Communist  Manifesto  had  formulated  a  great 
theory  of  evolution,  and  based  upon  it  the  mightiest 
proletarian  movement  of  history.  Socialism  had 
become  a  science  instead  of  a  dream. 

IV 

Naturally,  in  view  of  its  historic  role,  the  joint 
authorship  of  the  Manifesto  has  been  much  discussed. 
What  was  the  respective  share  of  each  of  its  creators  ? 
What  did  Marx  contribute,  and  what  Engels?  It 
may  be,  as  Liebknecht  says,  an  idle  question,  but  it 

1  F.  Engels,  Introduction  to  the  Communist  Manifesto  (English 
translation,  1888).  The  italics  are  mine.  J.  S. 


62  SOCIALISM 

is  a  perfectly  natural  one.  The  pamphlet  itself  does 
not  assist  us;  there  are  no  internal  signs  pointing 
now  to  the  hand  of  the  one,  now  to  the  hand  of  the 
other.  We  may  hazard  a  guess  that  most  of  the 
programme  of  ameliorative  measures  was  the  work  of 
Engels,  and  perhaps  the  final  section.  For  it  was  ever 
his  task  to  deal  with  present  political  problems  in  the 
light  of  the  fundamental  theories,  to  the  systematiza- 
tion  and  elucidation  of  which  Marx  was  devoted. 

Beyond  this  mere,  and  perhaps  rash,  conjecture, 
we  have  Engels'  word  with  regard  to  the  basal  prin- 
ciple which  he  has  summarized  in  the  passage  already 
quoted.  "The  Manifesto,  being  our  joint  produc- 
tion," he  says,  "I  consider  myself  bound  to  state  that 
the  fundamental  proposition  which  forms  its  nucleus 
belongs  to  Marx.  .  .  .  This  proposition,  which,  in 
my  opinion,  is  destined  to  do  for  history  what  Dar- 
win's theory  has  done  for  biology,  we,  both  of  us,  had 
been  gradually  approaching  for  some  years  before 
1845.  How  far  I  had  progressed  toward  it  is  best 
shown  by  my  Condition  of  the  Working  Class  in  Eng- 
land.1 But  when  I  again  met  Marx  at  Brussels,  in 
the  spring  1845,  he  had  it  ready  worked  out,  and 
put  it  before  me  in  terms  almost  as  clear  as  those  in 
which  I  have  stated  it  here."  2 

1  F.  Engels,  The  Condition  of  the  Working  Class  in  England  in  1844, 
See,  for  instance,  pages  79,  80,  82,  etc. 

2  Introduction    to    the    Communist   Manifesto  (English   edition, 
1888). 


THE  "COMMUNIST  MANIFESTO"  63 

Engels  has  lifted  the  veil  so  far,  but  the  rest  is  hid- 
den. Perhaps  it  is  well  that  it  should  be;  well  that 
no  man  should  be  able  to  say  which  passages  came 
from  the  spirit  of  Marx,  and  which  from  the  spirit  of 
Engels.  In  life  they  were  inseparable,  and  so  they 
must  be  in  the  Valhalla  of  history.  The  greatest 
political  pamphlet  of  all  tune  must  forever  bear,  with 
equal  honor,  the  names  of  both.  Their  noble  friend- 
ship unites  them  even  beyond  the  tomb. 

"  Twin  Titans !    Whom  defeat  ne'er  bowed, 
Scarce  breathing  from  the  fray, 
Again  they  sound  the  war  cry  loud, 
Again  is  riven  Labor's  shroud, 
And  life  breathed  in  the  clay. 
Their  work  ?    Look  round  —  see  Freedom  proud 
And  confident  to-day."  * 

1  From  Friedrich  Engels,  a  poem  by  "  J.  L."  (John  Leslie),  Justice 
(London),  August  17,  1895. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  MATERIALISTIC   CONCEPTION  OF  HISTORY 


SOCIALISM,  then,  in  the  modern,  scientific  sense, 
is  a  theory  of  social  evolution.  Its  hopes  for  the 
future  rest,  not  upon  the  genius  of  some  Utopia- 
builder,  but  upon  the  forces  of  historical  develop- 
ment. The  Socialist  state  will  never  be  realized 
except  as  the  result  of  economic  necessity,  the  cul- 
mination of  successive  epochs  of  industrial  evolution. 
Thus  the  present  social  system  appears  to  the  Socialist 
of  to-day,  not  as  it  appeared  to  the  Utopians,  and  as 
it  still  must  appear  to  mere  ideologist  reformers,  as  a 
triumph  of  ignorance  or  wickedness,  the  reign  of  false 
ideas,  but  as  a  result  of  an  age-long  evolutionary 
process  determined,  not  wholly  indeed,  but  mainly, 
by  certain  methods  of  producing  the  necessities  of 
life  in  the  first  place,  and  secondly,  of  effecting  their 
exchange. 

Not,  let  it  be  understood,  that  Socialism  in  becoming 
scientific  has  become  a  mere  mechanical  theory  of 
economic  fatalism.  The  historical  development,  the 
social  evolution,  upon  the  laws  of  which  the  theories 

64 


THE  MATERIALISTIC  CONCEPTION   OF  HISTORY     65 

of  Socialism  are  based,  is  a  human  progress,  involv- 
ing all  the  complex  feelings,  emotions,  interests, 
aspirations,  hopes,  and  fears,  common  to  man.1  To 
ignore  this  fundamental  fact,  as  they  must  who 
interpret  the  Marx-Engels  theory  of  history  as  an 
economic  fatalism,  is  to  miss  the  profoundest  sig- 
nificance of  the  theory.  While  it  is  true  that  the 
scientific  spirit  destroys  the  idea  of  romantic,  magic 
transformations  of  the  social  system,  and  the  belief 
that  the  world  may  at  will  be  re-created,  re-built 
upon  the  plans  of  some  Utopian  architect,  it  still,  as 
we  shall  see,  leaves  room  for  the  human  factor.  They 
who  accept  the  theory  that  the  production  or  the 
material  necessities  of  life  is  the  main  impelling  force, 
the  geist,  of  human  evolution,  may  rightly  protest 
against  social  injustice  and  wrong  just  as  vehemently 
as  any  of  the  ideologists,  and  aspire  just  as  fervently 
toward  a  nobler  and  better  state.  The  Materialistic 
Conception  of  History  does  not  involve  the  fatalist 
resignation  summed  up  hi  the  phrase,  "Whatever 
is,  is  natural,  and,  therefore,  right." 

II 

The  idea  of  social  evolution  is  admirably  expressed 
in  the  fine  phrase  of  Leibnitz :  "  The  present  is  the 

1  For  a  discussion  of  this  point,  see  Enrico  Ferri's  Socialism  and 
Modern  Science.  Translated  by  R.  Rives  La  Monte,  New  York, 
1900. 

F 


66  SOCIALISM 

child  of  the  past,  but  it  is  the  parent  of  the  future."  * 
The  great  seventeenth-century  philosopher  was  not 
indeed  the  first  to  postulate  and  apply  to  society 
that  doctrine  of  flux,  of  continuity  and  unity,  which 
we  call  evolution.  In  all  ages  of  which  record  has 
been  preserved  to  us,  it  has  been  sporadically,  and 
more  or  less  vaguely  expressed.  Even  savages  seem 
to  have  dimly  perceived  it.  The  saying  of  the 
Bechuana  chief,  recorded  by  the  missionary,  Casalis, 
was  probably,  from  its  epigramatic  character,  a 
proverb  of  his  people.  "  One  event  is  always  the  son 
of  another,"  he  said,  —  a  saying  strikingly  like  that 
of  Leibnitz. 

Since  the  work  of  Lyell,  Darwin,  Wallace,  Spencer, 
Huxley,  and  their  numerous  followers,  —  a  brilliant 
school  embracing  the  foremost  historians  and  sociolo- 
gists of  Europe  and  America, —  the  idea  of  evolution 
as  a  universal  law  has  made  rapid  and  certain  progress. 
Everything  changes ;  nothing  is  immutable  or  eternal. 
Whatever  is,  whether  hi  geology,  astronomy,  biology, 
or  sociology,  is  the  result  of  numberless,  inevitable, 
related  changes.  The  present  is  a  phase  only  of  a 
great  transition  process  from  what  was,  through  what 
is,  to  what  will  be. 

The  Marx-Engels  theory  is  an  exploration  of  the 
laws  governing  this  process  of  evolution  in  the  domain 
of  human  relations :  an  attempt  to  provide  a  key  to 

1  Edward  Clodd,  Pioneers  of  Evolution  from  Thales  to  Huxley, 
page  1. 


THE   MATERIALISTIC   CONCEPTION   OF   HISTORY     67 

the  hitherto  mysterious  succession  of  changes  in  the 
political,  juridical,  and  social  relations  and  institu- 
tions. Whence,  for  instance,  arose  the  institution  of 
chattel  slavery,  so  repugnant  to  our  modern  ideas  of 
right  and  wrong ;  and  how  shall  we  explain  its  defense 
and  justification  in  the  name  of  religion  and  morality  ? 
How  account  for  the  fact  that  what  at  one  period  of 
the  world's  history  is  regarded  as  perfectly  natural 
and  right  —  the  practice  of  polygamy,  for  example  — 
becomes  abhorent  at  another  period;  or  that  what  is 
regarded  with  horror  and  disgust  hi  one  part  of  the 
world  is  sanctioned  by  the  ethical  codes  and  freely 
practiced  elsewhere?  Ferri  gives  two  examples  of 
this  kind :  the  cannibalism  of  Central  African  tribes, 
and  the  killing  of  parents,  as  a  religious  duty,  in 
Sumatra.1  To  reply  "custom"  is  to  beg  the  whole 
issue ;  for  customs  do  not  exist  without  reason,  how- 
ever difficult  it  may  be  for  us  to  discern  the  reasons 
for  any  particular  custom.  To  reply  that  these 
things  are  mysteries,  as  the  old  theologians  did  when 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  questioned,  is  to  leave 
the  question  unanswered  and  to  challenge  doubt  and 
investigation;  the  human  mind  abhors  a  mystery  as 
nature  abhors  a  vacuum.  Despite  Spencer's  dog- 
matism, the  human  mind  has  never  admitted  the 
existence  of  the  Unknowable.  To  explore  the  Un- 
known is  man's  universal  impulse;  and  with  each 

1  Feni,  Socialism  and  Modern  Science,  page  96. 


68  SOCIALISM 

fresh  discovery  the   Unknown  is  narrowed  by  the 
expansion  of  the  Known. 

The  theory  that  ideas  determine  progress,  that,  in 
the  words  of  Professor  Richard  T.  Ely,1  "all  that  is 
significant  hi  human  history  may  be  traced  back  to 
ideas,"  is  only  true  hi  the  sense  that  a  half  truth  is 
true.  It  is  truth,  nothing  but  the  truth,  but  it  is 
not  the  whole  truth.  For  ideas  have  histories,  too, 
and  the  causation  of  an  idea  must  be  understobd 
before  the  idea  itself  can  serve  to  explain  anything. 
We  must  go  back  of  the  idea  to  the  causes  which 
gave  it  birth  if  we  would  interpret  anything  by  it. 
We  may  trace  the  American  Revolution,  for  example, 
back  to  the  revolutionary  ideas  of  the  colonists,  but 
that  will  not  materially  assist  us  to  understand  the 
Revolution.  For  that,  it  is  necessary  to  trace  the 
ideas  themselves  to  then-  source,  the  economic  dis- 
content of  a  sadly  exploited  people.  This  is  the 
new  spirit  which  illumines  the  works  of  historians 
like  Green,  McMaster,  Morse  Stephens,  and  others, 
who  emphasize  social  rather  than  individual  forces, 
and  find  the  geist  of  history  in  social  experiences  and 
institutions.  What  has  been  called  the  "Great  Man 
theory,"  the  theory  which  regarded  Luther  as  the 
creator  of  the  Protestant  Reformation,  to  quote  only 
one  example,  and  ignored  the  great  economic  changes 
consequent  upon  the  break-up  of  feudalism  and  the 

1  Ely,  Studies  in  the  Evolution  of  Industrial  Society,  page  3. 


THE   MATERIALISTIC   CONCEPTION    OF   HISTORY     69 

rise  of  a  new  industrial  order,  long  dominated  our 
histories.  The  student,  who  seeks  in  the  bulk  of  the 
histories  written  prior  to,  say,  1860,  what  he  has  a 
legitimate  reason  for  seeking,  a  picture  of  the  actual 
life  of  the  people  at  any  period,  will  be  sadly  dis- 
appointed. He  will  find  records  of  wars  and  treaties 
of  peace,  royal  genealogies  and  gossip,  wildernesses 
of  unrelated  dates.  But  he  will  not  find  such  careful 
accounts  of  the  jurisprudence  of  the  period,  nor  any 
hint  of  the  economical  conditions  of  its  develop- 
ment. He  will  find  splendid  accounts  of  court  life, 
with  its  ceremonials,  scandals,  intrigues,  and  follies; 
but  no  such  pictures  of  the  lives  of  the  people,  then* 
social  conditions,  and  the  methods  of  labor  and 
commerce  which  obtained.  The  new  spirit,  hi  the 
development  of  which  the  materialistic  conception 
of  Marx  and  Engels  has  been  an  important  creative 
influence,  is  concerned  less  with  the  chronicle  of 
notable  events  and  dates  than  with  their  underlying 
causes  and  the  manner  of  life  of  the  people.  Had  it 
no  other  bearing,  the  Marx-Engels  theory,  con- 
sidered solely  as  a  contribution  to  the  science  of  his- 
tory, would  have  been  one  of  the  greatest  philosophical 
achievements  of  the  nineteenth  century.  By  em- 
phasizing the  importance  of  the  economic  factors  in 
social  evolution,  it  has  done  much  for  economics  and 
more  for  history.1 

1  Cf.  Seligman,  The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History. 


70  SOCIALISM 

III 

While  the  Materialistic  Conception  of  History 
bears  the  names  of  Marx  and  Engels,  as  the  theory  of 
organic  evolution  bears  the  names  of  Darwin  and 
Wallace,  it  is  not  claimed  that  the  idea  had  never 
before  been  expressed.  Just  as  thousands  of  years 
before  Darwin  and  Wallace  the  theory  which  bears 
their  names  had  been  dimly  perceived,  so  the  idea 
that  economic  motives  dominate  historical  develop- 
ments had  its  foreshado wings.  The  famous  dictum 
of  Aristotle,  that  only  by  the  introduction  of  machines 
would  the  abolition  of  slavery  ever  be  possible,  is  a 
conspicuous  example  of  many  anticipations  of  the 
theory.  It  is  true  that  "In  dealing  with  speculations 
so  remote,  we  have  to  guard  against  reading  modern 
meanings  into  writings  produced  hi  ages  whose  limita- 
tions of  knowledge  were  serious,  whose  temper  and 
standpoint  are  wholly  alien  to  our  own,"  1  but  the 
Aristotelian  saying  admits  of  no  other  interpretation. 
It  is  clearly  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  supreme 
politico-social  institution  of  the  time  depended  upon 
hand  labor.  In  later  times,  the  idea  of  a  direct  con- 
nection between  economic  causes  and  legal  and 
political  institutions  reappears  in  the  works  of  various 
writers.  Professor  Seligman2  quotes  from  Harring- 

1  Clodd,  Pioneers  of  Evolution  from  Tholes  to  Huxley,  page  8. 

2  Seligman,  The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History,  page  50. 


THE   MATERIALISTIC   CONCEPTION   OF  HISTORY     71 

ton's  Oceana  the  argument  that  the  prevailing  form 
of  government  depends  upon  the  conditions  of  land 
tenure,  and  the  extent  of  its  monopolization.  Saint- 
Simon,  too,  as  already  stated,1  taught  that  political 
institutions  depend  upon  economic  conditions.  But 
it  is  to  Marx  and  Engels  that  we  owe  the  first  formu- 
lation of  what  had  hitherto  been  but  a  suggestion 
into  a  definite  theory,  and  the  beginnings  of  a  litera- 
ture, now  of  considerable  proportions,  dealing  with 
history  from  its  standpoint. 

A  word  as  to  the  designation  of  the  theory.  Its 
authors  gave  it  the  name  of  "historical  materialism," 
and  it  has  been  said  that  the  name  is  for  various 
reasons  unfortunately  chosen.  The  two  leading 
American  exponents  of  the  theory,  Professor  Selig- 
man  and  Mr.  Ghent,  have  expressed  that  conviction 
hi  very  definite  terms.  The  last-named  writer 
bases  his  objection  to  the  name  on  the  ground  that 
it  is  repellent  to  many  persons  who  associate  the 
word  "materialism"  with  the  philosophy  "that  mat- 
ter is  the  only  substance,  and  that  matter  and  its 
motions  constitute  the  universe."  2  That  is  an  old 
objection,  and  undoubtedly  contains  much  truth;  it 
is  interesting  in  connection  therewith  to  read  Engels' 
sarcastic  comment  upon  it  hi  the  Introduction  to  his 
Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific.  The  objection  of 

1  See  page  43. 

2  W.  J.  Ghent,  Mass  and  Class,  page  9. 


72  SOCIALISM 

Professor  Seligman  is  based  upon  another  ground 
entirely.  He  impugns  its  accuracy.  "The  theory 
which  ascribes  all  changes  in  society  to  the  influence 
of  climate,  or  to  the  character  of  the  fauna  and  flora, 
is  materialistic,"  he  says,  "and  yet  has  little  in  com- 
mon with  the  doctrine  here  discussed.  The  doctrine 
we  have  to  deal  with  is  not  only  materialistic,  but 
also  economic  in  character ;  and  the  better  phrase 
is  ...  the  'economic  interpretation'  of  history."1 
For  this  reason  he  discards  the  name  given  to  the 
theory  by  its  authors  and  adopts  the  luminous  phrase 
of  Thorold  Rogers.2  By  French  and  Italian  writers 
the  term  "economic  determinism"  has  long  been  used 
and  it  has  been  adopted  to  some  extent  in  this  country 
by  Socialist  writers.  But  this  term  also  Professor 
Seligman  rejects,  for  the  perfectly  valid  reason  that  it 
exaggerates  the  theory,  and  gives  it,  by  implication, 
a  fatalistic  character,  conveying,  as  it  does,  the  idea 
that  economic  influence  is  thesoZe  determining  factor— 
a  view  which  its  authors  specifically  repudiated. 

Many  persons  have  doubtless  been  deceived  into 
believing  that  the  theory  involves  the  denial  of  all 
influence  to  idealistic  or  spiritual  factors;  and  the 
assumption  that  economic  forces  alone  determine  the 
course  of  historical  development.  That  is  due 
partly,  no  doubt,  to  the  overemphasis  placed  upon 

1  Seligman,  The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History,  page  4, 

2  Without  credit,  by  the  way. 


THE   MATERIALISTIC   CONCEPTION   OF  HISTORY     73 

it  by  its  founders  —  a  common  experience  of  new 
doctrines  —  and,  above  all,  the  exaggerations  of  too 
zealous,  unrestrained  disciples.  There  is  a  wise  say- 
ing of  Schiller's  which  suggests  the  spirit  in  which 
these  exaggerations  of  a  great  truth  —  exaggerations 
by  which  it  becomes  falsehood  —  should  be  regarded : 
"Rarely  do  we  reach  truth,  except  through  ex- 
tremes—  we  must  have  foolishness  .  .  .  even  to 
exhaustion,  before  we  arrive  at  the  beautiful  goal  of 
calm  wisdom."  l  When  it  is  contended  that  the 
"Civil  War  was  at  the  bottom  a  struggle  between 
two  economic  principles," 2  we  have  the  presentation 
of  an  important  truth,  the  key  to  the  proper  under- 
standing of  a  great  event.  But  when  that  important 
fact  is  exaggerated  and  torn  from  its  legitimate  place 
to  suit  the  propaganda  of  a  theory,  and  we  are  asked 
to  believe  that  Garrison,  Lovejoy,  and  other  abo- 
litionists, were  inspired  solely  by  economic  motives, 
that  the  urge  of  human  freedom  did  not  enter  their 
souls,  we  are  forced  to  reject  it.  But  let  it  be  clearly 
understood  that  it  forms  no  part  of  the  theory,  that 
it  is  even  expressly  denied  in  the  very  terms  of  the 
theory,  and  that  its  founders  took  every  chance  of 
repudiating  such  monstrous  perversions  of  then- 
statements. 
In  one  of  the  very  earliest  of  his  writings  upon  the 

1  Schiller,  Philosophical  Letters,  Preamble. 

8  Seligman,  The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History,  page  86. 


74  SOCIALISM 

subject,  some  comments  upon  the  philosophy  of 
Ludwig  Feuerbach,  written  in  1845,  and  intended  to 
form  the  basis  of  a  work  upon  the  subject,  we  find 
Marx  insisting  that  man  is  not  a  mere  automaton, 
driven  irresistibly  by  blind  economic  forces.  He  says : 
"The  materialistic  doctrine,  that  men  are  the  products 
of  conditions  and  education,  different  men,  there- 
fore, the  products  of  other  conditions  and  changed 
education,  forgets  that  circumstances  may  be  altered 
by  men,  and  that  the  educator  has  himself  to  be  edu- 
cated." l  Thus  early  we  see  the  master  taking  a 
position  entirely  at  variance  with  those  of  his  dis- 
ciples who  would  claim  that  the  human  factor  has  no 
place  in  historical  development.  Marx  recognizes  the 
human  character  of  the  problem  and  the  futility  of 
attempting  to  reduce  all  the  processes  of  history  and 
human  progress  to  one  sole  basic  cause.  And  in  no 
instance,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  has  Marx  or  his  col- 
league attempted  to  do  this.  In  another  place, 
Marx  contends  that  "men  make  their  own  history, 
but  they  make  it  not  of  their  own  accord  or  under 
self-chosen  conditions,  but  under  given  and  trans- 
mitted conditions.  The  tradition  of  all  dead  genera- 
tions weighs  like  a  mountain  upon  the  brain  of  the 
living."  2  Here,  again,  the  influence  of  the  human 

1  Appendix   to   F.    Engels'  Feuerbach,  the  Roots  of  the  Socialist 
Philosophy,  translated  by  Austin  Lewis,   1903. 

2  Quoted  from  The  Eighteenth  Brumaire  of  Marx,  by  Seligman, 
page  42. 


THE   MATERIALISTIC  CONCEPTION  OF  HISTORY     75 

will  is  not  denied,  though  its  limitations  are  indicated. 
This  is  the  application  to  social  man  of  the  theory 
of  limitations  of  the  will  commonly  accepted  as 
applying  to  individuals.  Man  is  only  a  freewill 
agent  within  certain  bounds.  In  a  given  contingency, 
I  may  be  "free"  to  act  in  a  certain  manner,  or  to 
refrain  from  so  acting.  I  may  take  my  choice,  in 
the  one  direction  or  the  other,  entirely  free,  to  all 
appearances,  from  restraining  or  compelling  in- 
fluences; thus,  I  have  acted  upon  my  "will."  But 
what  factors  formed  my  will?  What  circumstances 
determined  my  decision?  Perhaps  fear,  or  shame, 
or  pride,  perhaps  tendencies  inherited  from  the  past. 
Engels  admits  that  the  economic  factor  in  evolu- 
tion has  been  unduly  emphasized.  He  says:  "Marx 
and  I  are  partly  responsible  for  the  fact  that  the 
younger  men  have  sometimes  laid  more  stress  on 
the  economic  side  than  it  deserves.  In  meeting  the 
attacks  of  our  opponents,  it  was  necessary  for  us  to 
emphasize  the  dominant  principle  denied  by  them; 
and  we  did  not  always  have  the  time,  place,  or 
opportunity  to  let  the  other  factors  which  were  con- 
cerned in  the  mutual  action  and  reaction  get  their 
deserts."1  In  another  letter,2  he  says:  "According 
to  the  materialistic  view  of  history,  the  factor  which 

1  Quoted  from  The  Sozialistische  Akademiker,  1895,  by  Seligman : 
The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History,  page  142. 
8  Idem,  page  143. 


76  SOCIALISM 

is  in  last  instance  decisive  in  history  is  the  production 
and  reproduction  of  actual  life.  More  than  this 
neither  Marx  nor  I  have  ever  asserted.  But  when 
any  one  distorts  this  so  as  to  read  that  the  economic 
factor  is  the  sole  element,  he  converts  the  state- 
ment into  a  meaningless,  abstract,  absurd  phrase. 
The  economic  condition  is  the  basis;  but  the  various 
elements  of  the  superstructure  —  the  political  forms 
of  the  class  contests,  and  their  results,  the  constitu- 
tions—  the  legal  forms,  and  also  all  the  reflexes  of 
these  actual  contests  in  the  brains  of  the  participants, 
the  political,  legal,  philosophical  theories,  the  re- 
ligious views  ...  —  all  these  exert  an  influence  on 
the  development  of  the  historical  struggles,  and,  in 
many  instances,  determine  their  form." 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  doctrine  does  not 
imply  economic  fatalism.  It  does  not  deny  that 
ideals  influence  historical  developments  and  in- 
dividual conduct.  It  does  not  deny  that  men  may, 
and  often  do,  act  in  accordance  with  the  promptings 
of  noble  impulses,  when  then-  material  interests 
would  lead  them  to  act  otherwise.  We  have  a  con- 
spicuous example  of  this  hi  Marx's  own  life,  his 
splendid  devotion  to  the  cause  of  the  workers  through 
years  of  terrible  poverty  and  hardship  when  he 
might  have  chosen  wealth  and  fame.  Thus  we  are 
to  understand  the  materialistic  theory  as  teaching, 
not  that  history  is  determined  by  economic  forces 


THE   MATERIALISTIC   CONCEPTION   OF   HISTORY     77 

only,  but  that  in  human  evolution  the  chief  factors 
are  social  factors,  and  that  these  factors  in  turn  are 
mainly  molded  by  economic  circumstances.1 

This,  then,  is  the  basis  of  the  Socialist  philosophy, 
which  Engels  regards  as  "destined  to  do  for  history 
what  Darwin's  theory  has  done  for  biology."  Marx 
himself  made  a  similar  comparison.2  Marx  was,  so 
Liebknecht  tells  us,  one  of  the  first  to  recognize  the 
importance  of  Darwin's  investigations  from  a  socio- 
logical point  of  view.  His  first  elaborate  treat- 
ment of  the  materialistic  theory,  hi  A  Contribution 
to  the  Critique  of  Political  Economy,  appeared  hi  1859, 
the  year  in  which  The  Origin  of  Species  appeared. 
"We  spoke  for  months  of  nothing  else  but  Darwin, 
and  the  revolutionizing  power  of  his  scientific  con- 
quests," 3  says  Liebknecht.  Darwin,  however,  had 
little  knowledge  of  political  economy,  as  he  acknowl- 
edged in  a  letter  to  Marx,  thanking  the  latter  for  a 
copy  of  his  Das  Capital.  "I  heartily  wish  that  I 
possessed  a  greater  knowledge  of  the  deep  and  impor- 
tant subject  of  economic  questions,  which  would  make 
me  a  more  worthy  recipient  of  your  gift,"  he  wrote.4 

1  I  have  not  attempted  to  give  here  a  history  of  the  development 
of  the  theory,  and  only  in  a  general  way  have  I  attempted  to  explain 
it.     For  a  more  minute  study  of  the  theory,  I  must  refer  the  reader 
to  the  writings  of  Engels,  Seligman,  Ghent,  Ferri,  Bax,  and  others 
quoted  in  these  pages. 

2  Capital,  Vol.  I,  page  367  n. 

8  Liebknecht,  Memoirs  of  Karl  Marx,  page  91. 
4  Charles  Darwin  and  Karl  Marx,    A   Comparison,   by   Edward 
Aveling,  London,  1897. 


78  SOCIALISM 

IV 

The  test  of  such  a  theory  must  lie  in  its  application. 
Let  us,  then,  apply  the  materialistic  principle,  first 
to  a  specific  event,  and  then  to  the  great  sweep  of  the 
historic  drama.  Perhaps  no  single  event  has  more 
profoundly  impressed  the  imaginations  of  men,  or 
filled  a  more  important  place  in  our  histories,  than  the 
discovery  of  America  by  Columbus.  In  the  school- 
books  for  generations,  this  great  event  figures  as  a 
splendid  adventure,  arising  out  of  a  romantic  dream. 
But  the  facts  are,  as  we  know,  far  otherwise.1  In  the 
twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  there  were  numerous 
and  well-frequented  routes  from  Hindustan,  that 
vast  storehouse  of  treasure  from  which  Europe  drew 
its  riches.  Along  these  routes  cities  flourished. 
There  were  the  great  ports,  Licia  hi  the  Levant, 
Trebizond  on  the  Black  Sea,  and  Alexandria.  From 
these  ports,  Venetian  and  Genoese  traders  bore  the 
produce  over  the  passes  of  the  Alps  to  the  Upper 
Danube  and  the  Rhine.  Here  it  was  a  source  of 
wealth  to  the  cities  along  the  waterways,  from 
Ratisbon  and  Nuremburg,  to  Bruges  and  Antwerp. 
Even  the  slightest  acquaintance  with  the  history  of 
the  Middle  Ages  must  show  the  importance  of  these 
cities. 

1  See  Thorold  Rogers,  The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History, 
second  edition,  1891,  pages  10-12. 


THE  MATERIALISTIC  CONCEPTION  OF  HISTORY     79 

When  all  these  routes  save  the  Egyptian  were 
closed  by  the  hordes  of  savages  which  infested  Central 
Asia,  it  became  an  easy  matter  for  the  Moors  hi  Africa, 
and  the  Turks  in  Europe,  to  exact  immense  revenues 
from  the  Eastern  trade,  solely  through  their  monopoly 
of  the  route  of  transit.  The  Turks  were  securely 
seated  at  Constantinople,  threatening  to  advance  into 
the  heart  of  Europe,  and  building  up  an  immense 
military  system  out  of  the  taxes  imposed  upon  the 
trade  of  Europe  with  the  East  —  a  military  power, 
which,  hi  less  than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  enabled 
Selim  I  to  conquer  Mesopotamia  and  the  holy  towns 
of  Arabia,  and  to  annex  Egypt.1  It  became  neces- 
sary, then,  to  find  a  new  route  to  India;  and  it  was 
this  great  economic  necessity  which  first  set  Colum- 
bus thinking  of  a  pathway  to  India  over  the  Western 
Sea.  It  was  this  great  economic  necessity  which 
induced  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  to  support  his 
adventurous  plan,  —  hi  a  word,  without  detracting 
in  any  manner  from  the  splendid  genius  of  Columbus, 
or  from  the  romance  of  his  great  voyage  of  discovery, 
we  see  that,  fundamentally,  it  was  the  economic 
interest  of  Europe  which  gave  birth  to  the  one  and 
made  the  other  possible.  The  same  explanation 
applies  to  the  voyage  of  Vasco  da  Gama,  six  years 

1  I  do  not  attempt  to  develop  here  the  serious  consequences  of 
these  events  to  Europe.  See  The  Economic  Interpretation  of  His- 
tory, by  Thorold  Rogers,  Chapter  I,  page  8,  for  a  brief  account  of  this. 


80  SOCIALISM 

later,  which  resulted  in  finding  a  way  to  India  over 

the  southeast  course  by  way  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope. 

Kipling  asks  in  his  ballad  "The  British  Flag"  :  — 

"And  what  should  they  know  of  England,  who  only  England 
know?" 

There  is  a  profound  truth  in  the  defiant  line,  a  truth 
which  applies  equally  to  America  or  any  other  country. 
The  present  is  inseparable  from  the  past.  We  cannot 
understand  one  epoch  without  reference  to  its  prede- 
cessors; we  cannot  understand  the  history  of  the 
United  States  unless  we  first  seek  the  key  in  the  his- 
tory of  Europe ;  of  England  and  France,  in  particular. 
At  the  very  threshold,  to  understand  how  the  heroic 
navigator  came  to  discover  the  vast  continent  of  which 
the  United  States  is  part,  we  must 'pause  to  study  the 
economic  conditions  of  Europe  which  impelled  the 
adventurous  voyage,  and  led  to  the  finding  of  a  great 
continent  stretching  across  the  ocean  path.  Such  a 
view  of  history  does  not  rob  it  of  its  romance,  but 
rather  adds  to  it.  Surely,  the  wonderful  linking  of 
circumstances,  —  the  demand  for  spices  and  silks  to 
minister  to  the  fine  tastes  of  aristocratic  Europe, 
the  growth  of  the  trade  with  the  East  Indies,  the 
grasping  greed  of  Moor  and  Turk,  —  all  playing  a  role 
in  the  great  drama  of  which  the  discovery  of  America 
is  but  a  scene,  is  infinitely  more  fascinating  than  the 
latter  event  detached  from  its  historic  setting! 


THE   MATERIALISTIC   CONCEPTION   OF   HISTORY     81 

It  is  not  easy  in  the  compass  of  a  few  pages  to  give 
an  intelligent  view  of  the  main  currents  of  history. 
The  sketch  here  introduced  —  not  without  hesitation 
—  is  an  endeavor  to  state  the  Socialist  concept  of  the 
course  of  evolution  in  brief  outline;  to  indicate  the 
principal  economic  causes  which  have  determined 
that  course,  and  to  direct  the  inquiring  reader  to 
some  of  the  more  important  sources  of  information 
accessible  to  the  average  reader  knowing  no  language 
but  English. 

It  is  now  generally  admitted  that  primitive  man 
lived  under  Communism.  Lewis  H.  Morgan1  has 
calculated  that  if  the  life  of  the  human  race  be  assumed 
to  have  covered  one  hundred  thousand  years,  at  least 
ninety-five  thousand  years  were  spent  in  a  crude, 
tribal  Communism,  in  which  private  property  was 
practically  unknown,  and  in  which  the  only  ethic  was 
devotion  to  tribal  interests,  and  the  only  crime  an- 
tagonism to  tribal  interests.  Under  this  social  system 
the  means  of  making  wealth  was  hi  the  hands  of  the 
tribes,  or  gens,  and  the  distribution  was  likewise 
socially  arranged.  Between  the  different  tribes  war- 
fare was  constant;  but  in  the  tribe  itself  there  was 
cooperation  and  not  struggle.  This  fact  is  of  tre- 
mendous importance  in  view  of  the  criticisms  which 
have  been  directed  to  the  Socialist  philosophy  from 
the  so-called  Darwinian  point  of  view  —  the  theory 

1  Quoted  by  Hyndman,  Economics  of  Socialism,  page  5. 


82  SOCIALISM 

that  competition  and  struggle  is  the  law  of  life ;  that 
what  Professor  Huxley  calls  "the  Hobbesial  war  of 
each  against  all,"  is  the  normal  state  of  existence. 
I  say  the  "  so-called  Darwinian  theory"  advisedly,  for 
the  struggle  for  existence  as  the  law  of  evolution  has 
been  exaggerated  out  of  all  likeness  to  the  conception 
of  Darwin  himself.  In  The  Descent  of  Man,  for  in- 
stance, Darwin  raises  the  point  under  review,  and 
shows  how,  in  many  animal  societies,  the  struggle  for 
existence  is  replaced  by  cooperation  for  existence,  and 
how  that  substitution  results  in  the  development  of 
faculties  which  secure  to  the  species  the  best  condi- 
tions for  survival.  "Those  communities,"  he  says, 
"which  included  the  greatest  number  of  the  most 
sympathetic  members,  would  flourish  best  and  rear 
the  greatest  number  of  offspring."  *  Despite  these 
instances,  and  the  warning  of  Darwin  himself  that  the 
term  struggle  for  existence  should  not  be  too  narrowly 
interpreted  or  overrated,  his  followers,  instead  of 
broadening  it  according  to  the  master's  suggestions, 
narrowed  it  still  more.  This  is  almost  invariably 
the  fate  of  theories  which  deal  with  human  relations, 
perhaps  it  would  be  equally  true  to  say  of  all  theories. 
The  exaggerations  of  Malthus'  law  of  population  is 
a  case  in  point.  The  Marx-Engels  materialistic  con- 
ception of  history,  is,  we  have  seen,  another. 
Kropotkin,  among  others,  has  developed  the  theory 

1  Darwin,  The  Descent  of  Man,  second  edition,  page  163. 


THE   MATERIALISTIC  CONCEPTION   OF  HISTORY     83 

that  "though  there  is  an  immense  amount  of  warfare 
and  extermination  going  on  amidst  various  species, 
and  especially  amidst  various  classes  of  animals, 
there  is,  at  the  same  time,  as  much,  or  perhaps  even 
more,  of  mutual  support,  mutual  aid,  mutual  defense 
amidst  animals  belonging  to  the  same  species  or,  at 
least,  to  the  same  society.  Sociability  is  as  much  a 
law  of  nature  as  mutual  struggle.  ...  If  we  resort 
to  an  indirect  test,  and  ask  nature:  'Who  are  the 
fittest:  those  who  are  continually  at  war  with  each 
other,  or  those  who  support  one  another?'  we  at 
once  see  that  those  animals  which  acquire  habits  of 
mutual  aid  are  undoubtedly  the  fittest.  They  have 
more  chances  to  survive,  and  they  attain,  in  their 
respective  classes,  the  highest  development  of  in- 
telligence and  bodily  organization.  If  the  number- 
less facts  which  can  be  brought  forward  to  support 
this  view  are  taken  into  account,  we  may  safely  say 
that  mutual  aid  is  as  much  a  law  of  animal  life  as 
mutual  struggle,  but  that,  as  a  factor  of  evolution,  it 
most  probably  has  a  far  greater  importance,  inas- 
much as  it  favors  the  development  of  such  habits 
and  characters  as  insure  the  maintenance  and  further 
development  of  the  species,  together  with  the  greatest 
amount  of  welfare  and  enjoyment  of  life  for  the  in- 
dividual, with  the  least  waste  of  energy."  * 

From  the  lowest  forms  of  animal  life  up  to  the 

1  Kropotkin,  Mutual  Aid  a  Factor  of  Evolution,  pages  5-6. 


84  SOCIALISM 

highest,  man,  this  law  proves  to  be  operative.  It  is 
not  denied  that  there  is  competition  for  food,  for  life, 
within  the  species,  human  and  other.  But  that  com- 
petition is  not  usual;  it  arises  out  of  unusual  and 
special  conditions.  There  are  instances  of  hunger- 
maddened  mothers  tearing  food  away  from  their 
children;  men  drifting  at  sea  have  fought  for  water 
and  food,  as  beasts  fight;  but  these  are  not  normal 
conditions  of  life.  "Happily  enough,"  says  Kropot- 
kin  again,  "  competition  is  not  the  rule  either  in  the 
animal  world  or  in  mankind.  It  is  limited  among 
animals  to  exceptional  periods.  .  .  .  Better  con- 
ditions are  created  by  the  elimination  of  competition 
by  means  of  mutual  aid  and  mutual  support."  * 
This  is  the  voice  of  science  now  that  we  have  passed 
through  the  extremes  and  arrived  at  the  "beautiful 
goal  of  calm  wisdom."  Competition  is  not,  in  the 
verdict  of  modern  science,  the  law  of  life,  but  of  death. 
Strife  is  not  nature's  law  of  progress. 

Anything  more  important  for  the  purposes  of  our 
present  inquiry  than  this  verdict  of  science  it  would 
be  difficult  to  imagine.  Men  have  for  so  long  be- 
lieved and  declared  struggle  and  competition  to  be 
the  "law  of  nature,"  and  opposed  Socialism  on  the 
ground  of  its  supposed  antagonism  to  that  law,  that 
this  new  conception  of  the  law  comes  as  a  vindica- 
tion of  the  Socialist  position.  The  naturalist  testifies 

1  Kropotkin,  Miitual  Aid  a  Factor  of  Evolution,  page  74. 


THE  MATERIALISTIC   CONCEPTION   OF  HISTORY     85 

to  the  universality  of  the  principle  of  cooperation 
throughout  the  animal  world,  and  the  historian  to  its 
universality  over  the  greatest  period  of  man's  his- 
tory. Thus  the  present  tendencies  toward  combina- 
tion and  away  from  competition  in  industry  and 
commerce  appear  as  the  fulfilling  of  a  great  universal 
law  —  and  the  vain  efforts  of  men  to  stop  that  process, 
by  legislation,  boycotts,  and  divers  other  methods, 
appear  as  efforts  to  set  aside  nature's  immutable  law. 
Like  so  many  Canutes,  they  bid  the  tides  halt,  and, 
like  Canute's,  their  commands  are  vain  and  mocked 
by  the  unheeding  tides. 

Under  Communism,  then,  man  lived  for  many 
thousands  of  years.  As  far  back  as  we  can  go  into 
the  paleo-ethnology  of  mankind,  we  find  evidences 
of  this.  All  the  great  authorities,  Morgan,  Maine, 
Lubbock,  Taylor,  Bachofen,  and  many  others,  agree 
hi  this.  And  under  this  Communism  all  the  great 
fundamental  inventions  were  evolved,  as  Morgan 
and  others  have  shown.  The  wheel,  the  potter's 
wheel,  the  lever,  the  stencil  plate,  the  sail,  the  rudder, 
the  loom,  were  all  evolved  under  Communism  in  its 
various  stages.  So,  too,  the  cultivation  of  cereals 
for  food,  the  smelting  of  metals,  the  domestication  of 
animals,  —  to  which  we  owe  so  much,  and  on  which 
we  still  so  largely  depend,  —  were  all  introduced  under 
Communism.  Even  hi  our  own  day  there  have  been 
found  abundant  survivals  of  this  Communism  among 


86  SOCIALISM 

primitive  peoples.  I  need  only  mention  here  the 
Bantu  tribes  of  Africa,  whose  splendid  organization 
astonished  the  British,  and  the  Eskimos.  It  is  now 
possible  to  trace  with  a  fair  amount  of  certainty  the 
progress  of  man  through  various  stages  of  Communism, 
from  the  unconscious  Communism  of  the  nomad  to 
the  consciously  organized  and  directed  Communism 
of  the  most  developed  tribes,  right  up  to  the  threshold 
of  civilization,  when  private  property  takes  the  place 
of  common,  tribal  property,  and  economic  classes 
appear.1 


Private  property,  other  than  that  personal  owner- 
ship and  use  of  things,  such  as  weapons  and  tools, 
which  involves  no  class  or  caste  domination,  and  is 
an  integral  feature  of  all  forms  of  Communism,  first 
appears  in  the  ownership  of  man  by  man.  Slavery, 
strange  as  it  may  seem,  is  directly  traceable  to  tribal 
Communism,  and  first  appears  as  a  tribal  institution. 
When  one  tribe  made  war  upon  another,  its  efforts 
were  directed  to  the  killing  of  as  many  of  its  enemies 
as  possible.  Cannibal  tribes  killed  then*  foes  for  food, 
rarely  or  never  killing  their  fellow-tribesmen  for  that 
purpose.  Non-cannibalistic  tribes  killed  their  foes 

1  Cf.  Ancient  Society,  by  Lewis  H.  Morgan,  and  The  Origin  of  the 
Family,  Private  Property,  and  the  State,  by  Friedrich  Engels. 


THE   MATERIALISTIC   CONCEPTION   OP  HISTORY     87 

merely  to  get  rid  of  them.  But  when  the  power  of 
man  over  the  forces  of  external  nature  had  reached 
that  point  in  its  development  where  it  became  rela- 
tively easy  for  a  man  to  produce  more  than  was  neces- 
sary for  his  own  maintenance,  the  custom  arose  of 
making  captives  of  enemies  and  setting  them  to  work. 
A  foe  captured  had  thus  an  economic  value  to  the 
tribe;  either  he  could  be  set  to  work  directly,  his 
surplus  product  going  into  the  tribal  treasury,  or  he 
could  be  used  to  relieve  some  of  his  captors  from 
other  necessary  duties,  thus  enabling  them  to  pro- 
duce more  than  would  otherwise  be  possible,  the  effect 
being  the  same  in  the  end.  The  property  of  the  tribe 
at  first,  slaves  become  at  a  later  stage  private  property 
—  probably  through  the  institution  of  tribal  distribu- 
.  tion  of  wealth.  Cruel,  revolting,  and  vile  as  slavery 
appears  to  our  modern  sense  —  especially  the  earlier 
forms  of  slavery,  before  the  body  of  legislation,  and, 
not  less  important,  sentiment,  which  surrounded  it 
later  arose  —  it  still  was  a  step  forward,  a  distinct 
advance  upon  the  older  customs  of  cannibalism  or 
wholesale  slaughter. 

Nor  was  it  a  progressive  step  only  on  the  humani- 
tarian side.  It  had  other,  profounder  consequences 
from  the  evolutionary  point  of  view.  It  made  a 
leisured  class  possible,  and  provided  the  only  condi- 
tions under  which  art,  philosophy,  and  jurisprudence 
could  be  evolved.  The  secret  of  Aristotle's  saying, 


88  SOCIALISM 

that  only  by  the  invention  of  machines  would  the 
abolition  of  slavery  ever  be  possible,  lies  in  his  recog- 
nition of  the  fact  that  the  labor  of  slaves  alone  made 
possible  the  devotion  of  a  class  of  men  to  the  pursuit 
of  knowledge  instead  of  to  the  production  of  the 
primal  necessities  of  life.  The  Athens  of  Pericles, 
for  example,  with  all  its  varied  forms  of  culture,  its  art 
and  its  philosophy,  was  a  semi-communism  of  a  caste 
above,  resting  upon  a  basis  of  slave  labor  underneath. 
And  that  is  true  of  all  the  so-called  ancient  democ- 
racies of  civilization. 

The  private  ownership  of  wealth  producers  and 
their  products  made  private  exchange  inevitable; 
individual  ownership  of  land  took  the  place  of  com- 
munal ownership,  and  a  monetary  system  was  in- 
vented. Here,  then,  in  the  private  ownership  of 
land  and  laborer,  private  production  and  exchange 
for  profit,  we  have  the  economic  factors  which  caused 
the  great  revolts  of  antiquity,  and  led  to  that  con- 
centration of  wealth  into  few  hands  with  its  result- 
ing mad  luxury  and  widespread  proletarian  misery, 
which  conspired  to  the  overthrow  of  Greek  and 
Roman  civilization.  The  study  of  those  relentless 
economic  forces  which  led  to  the  break-up  of  Roman 
civilization  is  important  as  showing  how  chattel 
slavery  became  modified  and  the  slave  to  be  regarded 
as  a  serf,  a  servant  tied  to  the  soil.  The  lack  of 
adequate  production,  the  crippling  of  commerce  by 


THE   MATERIALISTIC   CONCEPTION   OF   HISTORY     89 

the  hordes  of  corrupt  officials,  the  overburdening  of 
the  agricultural  estates  with  slaves  so  that  agricul- 
ture became  profitless,  the  crushing  out  of  free  labor 
by  slave  labor,  and  the  rise  of  a  class  of  wretched  free- 
men proletarians,  these,  and  other  kindred  causes, 
led  to  the  breaking  up  of  the  great  estates;  the  dis- 
missal of  superfluous  slaves,  in  many  cases,  and  the 
partial  enfranchisement  of  others  by  making  them 
hereditary  tenants,  paying  a  fixed  rent  in  shares  of 
their  product  —  here  we  have  the  embryo  of  the  later 
feudal  system.  It  was  a  revolution,  this  transforma- 
tion of  the  social  system  of  Rome,  of  infinitely  greater 
importance  than  the  sporadic  risings  of  a  few  thousand 
slaves.  Yet,  such  is  the  lack  of  perspective  which 
historians  have  shown,  it  is  given  a  far  less  important 
place  in  the  histories  than  the  risings  in  question. 
Slavery,  chattel  slavery,  died  because  it  had  ceased 
to  be  profitable ;  serf  labor  arose  because  it  was  more 
profitable.  Slave  labor  was  economically  impossible, 
and  the  labor  of  free  men  was  morally  impossible; 
it  had,  thanks  to  the  slave  system,  become  regarded 
as  a  degradation.  In  the  words  of  Engels:  "This 
brought  the  Roman  world  into  a  blind  ally  from 
which  it  could  not  escape.  .  .  .  There  was  no  other 
help  but  a  complete  revolution."  * 

The    invading    barbarians   made    the    revolution 

1  F.  Engels,  The  Origin  of  the  Family,  Private  Property,  and  the 
State,  translated  by  Ernest  Untermann,  page  182. 


90  SOCIALISM 

complete.  By  the  poor  freeman  proletarians  who 
had  been  selling  their  children  into  slavery,  the  bar- 
barians were  welcomed.  Misery  is  like  opulence  in 
that  it  has  no  patriotism.  Many  of  the  proletarian 
freemen  had  fled  to  the  districts  of  the  barbarians, 
and  feared  nothing  so  much  as  a  return  to  Roman 
rule;  what,  then,  should  the  proletariat  care  for  the 
overthrow  of  the  Roman  state  ?  And  how  much  less 
the  slaves,  whose  condition,  generally  speaking,  could 
not  possibly  change  for  the  worse  ?  The  proletariat 
and  the  slave  could  join  in  saying,  as  men  have 
said  thousands  of  times  in  circumstances  of  despera- 
tion :  — 

"Our  fortunes  may  be  better;  they  can  be  no  worse." 

VI 

Feudalism  is  the  essential  politico-economic  system 
of  the  Middle  Ages.  Obscure  as  its  origin  is,  and  in- 
definite as  the  date  of  its  first  appearances,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  break-up  of  the  Roman 
system,  and  the  modification  of  the  existing  form  of 
slavery,  constituted  the  most  important  of  its  sources. 
Whether,  as  some  writers  have  contended,  the  feudal 
system  of  land  tenure  and  serfdom  is  traceable  to 
Asiatic  origins,  being  adopted  by  the  ruling  class  of 
Rome  in  the  days  of  the  economic  disintegration  of  the 
empire,  or  whether  it  rose  spontaneously  out  of  the 


THE  MATERIALISTIC   CONCEPTION   OF  HISTORY     91 

Roman  conditions,  matters  little  to  us.  Whatever 
its  archaeological  interest,  it  does  not  affect  the 
narrower  scope  of  our  present  inquiry  whether 
economic  necessity  caused  the  adoption  of  an  alien 
system  of  land  tenure  and  agricultural  production,  or 
whether  economic  necessity  caused  the  creation  of  a 
new  system.  The  central  fact  is  the  same  in  either 
case.  That  period  of  history  which  we  call  the  Mid- 
dle Ages  covers  a  span  of  well-nigh  a  thousand  years. 
If  we  arbitrarily  date  its  beginning  from  the  success- 
ful invasion  of  Rome  by  the  barbarians  in  the  early 
part  of  the  fifth  century,  and  its  ending  with  the  final 
development  of  the  craft  guilds  in  the  middle  of  the 
fourteenth  century,  we  have  a  sufficiently  exact 
measure  of  the  time  during  which  feudalism  developed, 
flourished,  and  declined.  There  are  few  things  more 
difficult  than  the  bounding  of  historical  epochs  by 
exact  dates;  just  as  the  ripening  of  the  wheat  fields 
comes  almost  imperceptibly,  so  that  the  farmer  can 
say  when  the  wheat  is  ripe  yet  cannot  tell  when  the 
ripening  occurred,  so  with  the  epochs  into  which  his- 
tory divides  itself.  There  is  the  unripe  state  and  the 
ripe,  but  no  chasm  yawns  between  them;  they  are 
merged  together.  We  speak  of  the  "end"  of  chattel 
slavery,  and  the  "rise"  of  feudalism,  therefore,  in 
this  wide,  general  sense.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  chattel 
slavery  survived  to  some  extent  for  centuries,  exist- 
ing alongside  of  the  new  form  of  servitude;  and  its 


92  SOCIALISM 

disappearance  took  place,  not  simultaneously  through- 
out the  civilized  world,  but  at  varying  intervals. 
Likewise,  too,  there  is  a  vast  difference  between  the 
first,  crude,  ill-defined  forms  of  feudalism  and  its  sub- 
sequent development. 

The  theory  of  feudalism  is  "the  divine  right  of 
kings."  God  is  the  Supreme  Lord  of  all  the  earth, 
the  kings  are  His  vice  regents,  devolving  their  au- 
thority hi  turn  upon  whomsoever  they  will.  At  the 
base  of  the  whole  superstructure  was  the  serf,  his 
relation  to  his  master  differing  only  in  degree,  though 
in  material  degree,  from  that  of  the  chattel  slave. 
He  might  be,  and  often  was,  as  brutally  ill-treated 
as  the  slave  before  him  had  been ;  he  might  be  ill  fed 
and  ill  housed;  his  wife  or  daughters  might  be  rav- 
ished by  his  master  or  his  master's  sons.  Yet,  withal, 
his  condition  was  better  than  that  of  the  slave.  He 
could  maintain  his  family  life  in  an  independent 
household;  he  possessed  some  rights,  chief  of  which 
perhaps  was  the  right  to  labor  for  himself.  Having 
his  own  allotment  of  land,  he  was  in  a  much  larger 
sense  a  human  being.  Compelled  to  render  so  many 
days'  service  to  his  lord,  tilling  the  soil,  clearing  the 
forest,  quarrying  stone,  and  doing  domestic  work, 
he  was  permitted  to  devote  a  certain,  sometimes  an 
equal,  number  of  days  to  work  for  his  own  benefit. 
Not  only  so,  but  the  service  the  lord  rendered  him, 
in  protecting  him  and  his  family  from  the  lawless  and 


THE   MATERIALISTIC   CONCEPTION   OF  HISTORY     93 

violent  robber  hordes  which  infested  the  country, 
was  considerable. 

The  feudal  estate,  or  manor,  was  an  industrial 
whole,  self-dependent,  and  having  few  essential  ties 
with  the  outside  world.  While  the  barons  and  their 
retainers,  the  lords,  thanes,  and  freemen,  enjoyed  a 
certain  rude  plenty,  some  of  the  richer  barons  and 
lords  enjoying  a  considerable  amount  of  luxury  and 
splendor,  the  villein  and  his  sons  tilled  the  soil,  reaped 
the  harvests,  felled  trees  for  fuel,  built  the  houses, 
raised  the  necessary  domestic  animals,  and  killed  the 
wild  animals;  his  wife  and  daughters  spun  the  flax, 
carded  the  wool,  made  the  homespun  clothing, 
brewed  the  mead,  and  gathered  the  grapes  which  they 
made  into  wine.  There  was  little  real  dependence 
upon  the  outside  world  except  for  articles  of  luxury. 

Such  was  the  basic  economic  institution  of  feudal- 
ism. But  alongside  of  the  feudal  estate  with  its  serf 
labor,  there  were  the  free  laborers,  no  longer  regarding 
labor  as  shameful  and  degrading.  These  free  labor- 
ers were  the  handicraftsmen  and  free  peasants  — 
the  former  soon  organizing  themselves  into  guilds. 
There  was  a  specialization  of  labor,  but,  as  yet,  little 
division.  Each  man  worked  at  a  particular  craft 
and  exchanged  his  individual  products.  The  free 
craftsman  would  exchange  his  product  with  the  free 
peasant,  and  sometimes  his  trade  extended  to  the 
feudal  manor.  The  guild  was  at  once  his  master  and 


94  SOCIALISM 

protector;  rigid  in  its  rules,  strict  in  its  surveillance 
of  its  members,  it  was  strong  and  effective  as  a 
protector  against  the  impositions  and  invasions  of 
feudal  barons  and  their  retainers.  Division  of  labor 
first  appears  in  its  simplest  form,  the  association  of 
independent  individual  workers  for  mutual  advantage, 
sharing  their  products  on  an  equal  basis.  This  simple 
cooperation  involved  no  social  change;  that  came 
later  with  the  development  of  the  workshop  system, 
and  the  division  of  labor  upon  a  definite,  predetermined 
plan.  Men  specialized  now  in  the  making  of  parts  of 
things;  no  man  could  say  of  a  finished  product,  "This 
is  mine,  for  I  have  made  it."  Production  bad  be- 
come a  social  function. 


VII 


At  first,  in  its  simple  beginnings,  the  cooperation 
of  various  producers  in  one  great  workshop  did  not 
involve  any  general  or  far-reaching  changes  in  the 
system  of  exchange.  But  as  the  new  methods  spread, 
and  it  became  the  custom  for  one  or  two  wealthy 
individuals  to  provide  the  workshop  and  necessary 
tools  of  production,  the  product  of  the  combined 
labor  of  the  workers  being  appropriated  in  its  en- 
tirety by  the  owners  of  the  agencies  of  production, 
who  paid  the  workers  a  money  wage  representing  less 
than  the  actual  value  of  their  product,  and  based 


THE  MATERIALISTIC  CONCEPTION   OF  HISTORY     95 

upon  the  cost  of  their  subsistence,  the  whole  economic 
system  was  once  more  revolutionized.  The  custom 
of  working  for  wages,  hitherto  rare  and  exceptional, 
became  general  and  customary;  individual  produc- 
tion for  use,  either  directly  or  through  the  medium 
of  personal  exchange,  was  superseded  by  social  pro- 
duction for  private  profit.  The  wholesale  exchange 
of  social  products  for  private  gain  took  the  place  of 
the  personal  exchange  of  commodities.  The  differ- 
ence between  the  total  cost  of  the  production  of  com- 
modities, including  the  wages  of  the  producers,  and 
their  exchange  value  —  determined  at  this  stage 
by  the  cost  of  producing  similar  commodities  by  in- 
dividual labor  —  constituted  the  share  of  the  capital- 
ist, his  profit,  and  the  objective  of  production.  The 
new  system  did  not  spring  up  spontaneously  and  full- 
fledged;  like  feudalism,  it  was  a  growth,  a  develop- 
ment of  existing  forms.  And  just  as  chattel  slavery 
lingered  on  after  the  rise  of  the  feudal  regime,  so  the 
old  methods  of  individual  production  and  direct 
exchange  of  commodities  for  personal  use  lingered 
on  in  places  and  isolated  industries  long  after  the 
rise  of  the  system  of  wage-paid  labor  and  production 
for  profit.  But  the  old  methods  of  production  and 
exchange  gradually  became  rare  and  well-nigh  obso- 
lete. In  accordance  with  the  stern  economic  law 
that  Marx  afterward  developed  so  clearly,  the  man 
whose  methods  of  production,  including  his  tools, 


96  SOCIALISM 

are  less  efficient  and  economical  than  those  of  his 
fellows,  thereby  making  his  labor  more  expensive, 
must  either  adapt  himself  to  the  new  conditions  or 
fall  in  the  struggle  which  ensues.  The  triumph  of 
the  new  system  of  capitalist  production,  with  its  far 
greater  efficiency  arising  from  associated  production 
upon  a  plan  of  specialized  division  of  labor,  was, 
therefore,  but  a  question  of  time.  The  class  of  wage- 
workers  thus  gradually  increased  in  numbers;  as 
men  found  that  they  were  unable  to  compete  with 
the  new  methods,  they  accepted  the  inevitable 
and  adapted  themselves  to  the  new  conditions. 


CHAPTER  V 

CAPITALISM   AND  THE   LAW  OF  CONCENTRATION 


SUCH  was  the  mode  of  the  first  stage  of  capitalistic 
production,  in  which  a  permanent  wage-working  class 
was  formed,  new  and  larger  markets  were  developed, 
and  production  for  sale  and  profit  became  the  rule, 
instead  of  the  exception  as  formerly  when  men  pro- 
duced primarily  for  use  and  sold  only  their  surplus 
products.  A  new  form  of  class  division  arose  out  of 
this  economic  soil.  Instead  of  being  bound  to  the 
land  as  the  serfs  had  been,  the  wage-workers  were 
bound  to  then-  tools.  They  were  not  bound  to  a 
single  master,  they  were  not  branded  on  the  cheek, 
but  they  were  dependent  upon  the  industrial  lords. 
Thus  it  was  that  economic  mastery  gradually  shifted 
from  the  land-owning  class  to  the  class  of  manufac- 
turers. The  political  and  social  history  of  the  Middle 
Ages  is  largely  the  record  of  the  struggle  for  supremacy 
between  these  two  classes.  That  is  the  central  fact 
of  the  Protestant  Reformation  and  of  the  Cromwellian 
Commonwealth. 

H  97 


98  SOCIALISM 

The  second  stage  of  capitalism  begins  with  the 
birth  of  the  machine  age;  the  great  mechanical  in- 
ventions of  the  latter  half  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
and  the  resulting  industrial  revolution,  the  salient 
features  of  which  we  have  already  traced.  That  revo- 
lution centered  in  England,  whose  proud  but,  from 
all  other  points  of  view  than  the  commercial,  foolish 
boast  for  a  full  century  it  was  to  be  the  "workshop 
of  the  world."  The  new  methods  of  production,  and 
the  development  of  trade  with  India  and  the  colonies 
and  the  United  States  of  America,  providing  a  vast 
and  apparently  almost  unlimited  market,  a  tre- 
mendous rivalry  was  created  among  the  people  of 
England,  tauntingly,  but  with  less  originality  than 
bitterness,  designated  "a  nation  of  shopkeepers"  by 
Napoleon  the  First.  Competition  flourished,  and 
commerce  grew  under  its  mighty  urge.  Quite  natur- 
ally, therefore,  competition  came  to  be  universally 
regarded  as  the  "life  of  trade"  and  the  one  supreme 
law  of  progress  by  British  economists  and  statesmen. 
The  economic  conditions  of  the  time  fostered  a  sturdy 
individualism  on  the  one  hand,  which,  on  the  other 
hand,  they  as  surely  destroyed;  resulting  in  the 
paradox  of  a  nation  of  theoretical  individualists 
becoming,  through  its  poor  laws,  and  more  especially 
its  vast  body  of  industrial  legislation,  a  nation  of 
practical  collectivists. 

The  third  and  last  stage  of  capitalism  is  charac- 


CAPITALISM  AND   LAW  OF  CONCENTRATION        99 

terized  by  new  forms  of  industrial  administration  and 
control.  Concentration  of  industry,  and  the  elimi- 
nation of  competition,  are  the  distinguishing  features 
of  this  stage.  When,  half  a  century  ago,  the  Socialists 
predicted  an  era  of  industrial  concentration  and 
monopoly  as  the  outcome  of  the  competitive  struggles 
of  the  tune,  their  prophecies  were  mocked  and  de- 
rided. Yet,  at  this  distance,  it  is  easy  to  see  what  the 
Socialists  were  foresighted  enough  to  foresee,  that 
competition  carried  in  its  bosom  the  germs  of  its 
own  inevitable  destruction.  In  words  which,  as 
Professor  Ely  justly  says,1  seem  to  many,  even  non- 
Socialists,  like  a  prophecy,  Karl  Marx  argued  more 
than  half  a  century  ago  that  the  business  units  in 
production  would  continuously  increase  in  magni- 
tude, until  at  last  monopoly  emerged  from  the  com- 
petitive struggle.  This  monopoly  becoming  a  shackle 
upon  the  system  under  which  it  has  grown  up,  and 
thus  becoming  incompatible  with  capitalist  con- 
ditions, socialization  must,  according  to  Marx, 
naturally  follow.2 

II 

With  the  last-named  phase  of  the  great  Socialist's 
prediction  we  are  not  for  the  moment  concerned. 

1  Studies  in  the  Evolution  of  Industrial  Society,  by  R.  T.  Ely,  page 
95. 

2  See  Capital,  English  edition,  page  789. 


100  SOCIALISM 

That  the  predicted  growth  of  monopoly  out  of  the 
competitive  struggle  has  been  abundantly  realized 
is  the  important  point  for  our  present  study.  Not- 
withstanding the  many  controversies  which  have 
arisen,  both  within  and  without  the  ranks  of  the 
followers  of  Marx,  it  is  generally  conceded  that  the 
control  of  the  means  of  production  is  being  rapidly 
concentrated  into  the  hands  of  small  and  smaller 
groups  of  capitalists.  In  recent  years  the  increase 
in  the  number  of  industrial  establishments  has  not 
kept  pace  with  the  increase  in  the  number  of  workers 
employed,  the  increase  of  capital,  or  the  value  of  the 
products  manufactured.  Not  only  do  we  find  small 
groups  of  men  controlling  certain  industries,  but  a 
selective  process  can  be  observed  at  work,  giving  to 
the  same  groups  of  men  control  of  various  industries 
otherwise  utterly  unrelated. 

In  the  earlier  stages  of  the  movement  toward  con- 
centration and  trustification,  it  was  possible  to  classify 
the  leading  capitalists  according  to  the  industries 
with  which  they  were  identified.  One  set  of  capital- 
ists, "Oil  Kings,"  controlled  the  oil  industry ;  another 
set,  "Steel  Kings,"  controlled  the  iron  and  steel  in- 
dustry; another  set,  "Coal  Barons,"  controlled  the 
coal  industry,  and  so  on  throughout  the  industrial 
and  commercial  life  of  the  nation.  To-day,  all  this 
has  been  changed.  An  examination  of  the  Directory 
of  Directors  shows  that  the  same  men  control  varied 


CAPITALISM   AND    LAW   OF   CONCENTRATION       101 

enterprises.  The  Oil  King  is  at  the  same  time  a 
Steel  King,  a  Coal  Baron,  a  Railway  Magnate,  and  so 
on.  The  men  who  comprise  the  Standard  Oil  group 
are  found  to  control  hundreds  of  other  companies. 
They  include  in  the  scope  of  their  directorate,  bank- 
ing, insurance,  mining,  real  estate,  railroad  and 
steamship  lines,  gas  companies,  sugar,  coffee,  cotton, 
and  tobacco  companies,  and  a  heterogeneous  host  of 
other  concerns.  Not  only  so,  but  these  same  men 
are  large  holders  of  foreign  investments.  In  all  the 
great  European  countries,  as  well  as  India,  Australia, 
Africa,  Asia,  and  the  South  American  countries,  they 
hold  large  investments,  while  foreign  capitalists 
similarly,  but  to  a  much  less  extent,  hold  large  in- 
vestments in  American  companies.  Thus,  the  con- 
centration of  industrial  control,  through  its  finance, 
has  become  interindustrial  and  is  rapidly  becoming 
international.  In  this  way  the  predictions  of  the 
Socialists  are  becoming  fulfilled. 


Ill 


During  the  last  few  years  there  have  been  many 
criticisms  of  the  Marxian  theory,  aiming  to  show  that 
this  concentration  has  been,  and  is,  much  more 
apparent  than  real.  Some  of  the  most  important  of 
these  criticisms  have  come  from  within  the  ranks 
of  the  Socialists  themselves,  and  have  been  widely 


102  SOCIALISM 

exploited  as  portending  the  disintegration  of  the 
Socialist  movement.  Inter  alia  it  may  be  remarked 
here  that  a  certain  fretfulness  of  temper  characterizes 
most  of  the  critics  of  the  Socialist  movement.  Ad- 
herence to  the  teachings  of  Marx  is  pronounced  by 
them  to  be  a  sign  of  the  bondage  of  the  movement  and 
its  intellectual  leaders  to  the  Marxian  "fetish,"  and 
every  recognition  of  the  human  fallibility  of  Marx 
by  a  Socialist  thinker  is  hailed  as  a  sure  portent  of 
a  split  among  the  Socialists.  Yet  the  most  serious 
criticisms  of  Marx  have  come  from  the  ranks  of  his 
followers.  It  is  perhaps  only  another  sign  of  the 
intellectual  bankruptcy  of  the  academic  opposition 
to  Socialism  that  this  should  be  so. 

Of  course,  Marx  was  human  and  fallible.  If 
Capital  had  never  been  written,  there  would  still 
have  been  a  Socialist  movement;  and  if  it  could  be 
destroyed  by  criticism,  the  Socialist  movement  would 
remain.  Socialism  is  a  product  of  economic  con- 
ditions, not  of  a  theory  or  a  book.  Capital  is  the 
intellectual  explanation  of  Socialism,  not  its  cause. 
Much  more  than  their  opponents,  Socialists  have 
recognized  this,  and  it  can  be  said  with  absolute  con- 
fidence that  they  have  been  much  more  independent 
in  then*  attitude  toward  the  great  work  of  Marx  than 
most  of  their  critics  have  been. 

It  cannot  be  fairly  said  that  the  sum  of  criticism 
has  seriously  affected  the  general  Marxian  theory. 


CAPITALISM  AND   LAW  OP  CONCENTRATION      103 

So  far  as  that  criticism  has  touched  the  subject  we 
are  discussing,  it  has  been  almost  pitifully  weak,  and 
the  furore  it  has  created  seems  almost  pathetic.  The 
main  results  of  this  criticism  may  be  briefly  summarized 
as  follows:  First,  in  industry,  the  persistence,  and 
even  increase,  of  petty  industries;  second,  in  agri- 
culture, the  failure  of  large-scale  farming,  and  the 
decrease  of  the  average  farm  acreage ;  third,  in  retail 
trade,  the  persistence  of  the  small  stores,  despite  the 
growth  in  size  and  number  of  the  great  department 
stores.  At  first  sight,  and  stated  in  this  manner,  it 
would  seem  as  if  these  conclusions,  if  justified  by 
facts,  involved  a  serious  and  far-reaching  criticism  of 
the  Socialist  theory  of  a  universal  tendency  toward 
the  concentration  of  industry  and  commerce  into 
units  of  ever  increasing  magnitude. 

Upon  closer  examination,  however,  these  conclu- 
sions, their  accuracy  admitted,  are  seen  to  involve 
no  very  serious  or  damaging  criticism  of  the  Socialist 
theory.  To  the  superficial  observer,  the  mere  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  industrial  establishments 
appears  a  much  more  important  matter  than  to  the 
careful  student,  who  is  not  easily  deceived  by  ap- 
pearances. The  student  sees  that  while  petty  in- 
dustries undoubtedly  do  increase,  the  increase  of 
large  industries  employing  many  more  workers  and 
much  larger  capitals  is  vastly  greater.  Furthermore, 
he  sees  what  the  superficial  observer  constantly  over- 


104  SOCIALISM 

looks,  that  these  petty  industries  are  unstable  and 
transient,  being  constantly  absorbed  by  the  larger 
industrial  combinations,  or  crushed  out  of  existence, 
as  soon  as  they  have  obtained  sufficient  vitality  to 
make  them  worthy  of  notice,  either  as  tributaries  to 
be  desired  or  potential  competitors  to  be  feared. 
Petty  industries  in  a  very  large  number  of  cases 
represent  a  stage  in  social  descent,  the  wreckage  of 
larger  industries  whose  owners  are  economically  as 
poor  as  the  ordinary  wage-workers,  or  even  poorer 
and  more  to  be  pitied.  Where,  on  the  contrary,  it  is 
a  stage  in  social  ascent,  the  petty  industry  is,  para- 
doxical as  the  idea  may  appear,  part  of  the  process  of 
industrial  concentration.  By  independent  gleaning, 
it  endeavors  to  find  sufficient  business  to  maintain  its 
existence.  If  it  fails  in  this,  its  owner  falls  down  to 
the  proletarian  level  from  which,  in  most  instances, 
he  arose.  If  it  succeeds  only  to  a  degree  sufficient  to 
maintain  its  owner  at  or  near  the  average  wage- 
earner's  level  of  comfort,  it  may  pass  unnoticed  and 
unmolested.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  gleans  sufficient 
business  to  make  it  desirable  as  a  tributary,  or  poten- 
tially dangerous  as  a  competitor,  the  petty  business 
is  pounced  upon  by  its  mightier  rival  and  either  ab- 
sorbed or  crushed,  according  to  the  temper  or  need 
of  the  latter.  Critics  of  the  Marxian  system  have  for 
the  most  part  completely  failed  to  recognize  this  sig- 
nificant aspect  of  the  subject,  and  attached  far  too  much 
importance  to  the  continuance  of  petty  industries. 


CAPITALISM  AND   LAW  OF  CONCENTRATION      105 

IV 

What  is  true  of  petty  industry  is  true  in  even 
greater  measure  of  retail  trade.  Nothing  could  well 
be  further  from  the  truth  than  the  hasty  generaliza- 
tions of  some  critics,  that  an  increase  in  the  number 
of  retail  business  establishments  invalidates  the 
Socialist  theory  of  the  concentration  of  capital.  In 
the  first  place,  many  of  these  establishments  have  no 
independence  whatsoever,  but  are  merely  agencies  of 
larger  enterprises.  Mr.  Macrosty1  has  shown  that  in 
London  the  cheap  restaurants  are  in  the  hands  of 
four  or  five  firms,  while  much  the  same  conditions 
exist  in  connection  with  the  trade  in  milk  and  bread. 
Similar  conditions  prevail  in  almost  all  the  large  cities 
in  this  and  most  other  countries.  Single  companies 
are  known  to  control  hundreds  of  saloons ;  restaurants, 
cigar  stores,  shoe  stores,  bake  shops,  coal  depots,  and 
a  multitude  of  other  businesses,  are  subject  to  like 
conditions,  and  it  is  doubtful  whether,  after  all,  there 
has  been  the  real  increase  of  individual  ownership 
which  Mr.  Ghent  concedes.2  However  that  may  be, 
it  is  certain  that  a  very  large  number  of  the  business 
establishments  which  figure  as  statistical  units  in 
the  argument  against  the  Socialist  theory  of  the 

1  The  Growth  of  Monopoly  in  English  Industry  (Fabian  Tract),  by 
H.  W.  Macrosty. 

2  Our  Benevolent  Feudalism,  by  W.  J.  Ghent,  pages  17-21. 


106  SOCIALISM 

concentration  of  capital  should  be  regarded  as  so 
many  evidences  in  its  favor. 

A  very  large  number,  moreover,  are  really  held 
by  speculators,  and  serve  only  as  a  means  of  divest- 
ing prudent  and  thrifty  artisans  and  others  of  their 
little  savings.  Whoever  has  lived  in  the  poorer 
quarters  of  a  great  city,  where  small  stores  are  most 
numerous,  and  has  watched  the  changes  constantly 
occurring  in  the  stores  of  the  neighborhood,  will 
realize  the  significance  of  this  observation.  The 
present  writer  has  known  stores  on  the  upper  East 
Side  of  New  York,  where  he  for  several  years  re- 
sided, change  hands  as  many  as  six  or  seven  times 
in  a  single  year.  What  happened  was  generally 
this:  A  workingman  having  been  thrown  out  of 
work,  or  forced  to  give  up  his  work  by  reason  of  age, 
sickness,  or  accident,  decided  to  attempt  to  make  a 
living  in  "business."  In  a  few  weeks,  or  a  few 
months  at  most,  his  small  savings  were  swallowed 
up,  and  he  had  to  leave  the  store,  making  way  for 
the  next  victim.  An  acquaintance  of  the  writerx 
owns  six  tenement  houses  in  different  parts  of  New 
York  City,  the  ground  floors  of  which  are  occupied 
by  small  stores.  These  stores  are  rented  out  by  the 
month  just  as  other  portions  of  the  buildings  are, 
and  the  owner,  on  going  over  his  books  for  five  years 
in  response  to  an  inquiry,  found  that  the  average 
duration  of  tenancy  in  them  had  been  less  than  eight 


CAPITALISM   AND   LAW  OF  CONCENTRATION      107 

months.  Still,  small  stores  do  exist;  they  have 
not  been  put  out  of  existence  by  the  big  department 
stores  as  was  confidently  expected  at  one  time. 
They  serve  a  real  social  need  by  supplying  the  minor 
commodities  of  everyday  use  in  small  quantities. 
Many  of  them  are  conducted  by  married  women  to 
supplement  the  earnings  of  their  husbands,  or  by 
widows;  others  by  men  unable  to  work  whose  in- 
come from  them  is  less  than  the  wages  of  artisans. 
These,  probably,  constitute  a  majority  of  the  small 
retail  establishments  which  show  any  tendency  to 
increase. 

Thus  reduced,  the  increase  of  small  industries 
and  retail  establishments  affects  the  contention 
that  there  is  a  general  tendency  to  concentration 
exceedingly  little.  The  effect  is  still  further  lessened 
when  it  is  remembered  that,  except  by  ill-informed 
persons,  the  Marxian  theory  has  never  been  under- 
stood to  mean  that  all  petty  industry  and  business 
must  disappear,  that  all  the  little  industries  and 
retail  businesses  must  be  concentrated  into  large 
ones,  to  make  Socialism  possible.  Many  of  these 
would  doubtless  continue  to  exist  under  a  Socialist 
regime.  Kautsky,  perhaps  the  ablest  living  expo- 
nent of  the  Marxian  theories,  admits  this.  He  has 
very  ably  argued  that  the  ripeness  of  society  for 
social  production  and  control  depends,  not  upon 
the  number  of  little  industries  that  still  remain, 


108  SOCIALISM 

but  upon  the  number  of  great  industries  which  al- 
ready exist.1  The  ripeness  of  society  for  Socialism 
is  not  disproved  by  the  number  of  ruins  and  relics 
abounding.  "Without  a  developed  great  industry, 
Socialism  is  impossible,"  says  this  writer.  "Where, 
however,  a  great  industry  exists  to  a  considerable 
degree,  it  is  easy  for  a  Socialist  society  to  concentrate 
production,  and  to  quickly  rid  itself  of  the  little  indus- 
try." 2  It  is  the  increase  of  large  industries,  then, 
which  Socialists  regard  as  the  essential  preliminary 
condition  of  Socialism. 

When  we  turn  to  agriculture,  the  criticisms  of 
the  Socialist  theory  of  concentration  appear  more 
substantial  and  important.  A  few  years  ago  we 
witnessed  the  rise  and  rapid  growth  of  the  great 
bonanza  farms  in  this  country.  It  was  shown  that 
the  advantages  of  large  capital  and  the  consolida- 
tion of  productive  forces  resulted,  in  farming  as 
in  manufacture,  in  greatly  cheapened  production.3 
The  end  of  the  small  farm  was  declared  to  be  immi- 
nent, and  it  seemed  for  a  while  that  concentration 
in  agriculture  would  even  outrun  concentration  in 
manufacture.  This  predicted  absorption  of  the  small 


1  The  Social  Revolution,  by  Karl  Kautsky,  Part  I,  page  144. 

2  Idem. 

3  The  cost  of  raising  wheat  in  California,  where  large  farming  has 
been  most  scientifically  developed,  is  said  to  vary  from  92.5  cents 
per  100  pounds  on  farms  of  1000  acres  to  40  cents  on  farms  of  50,000 


CAPITALISM  AND   LAW  OF  CONCENTRATION      109 

farms  by  the  larger,  and  the  average  increase  of 
farm  acreage,  has  not,  however,  been  fulfilled  to  any 
great  degree.  An  increase  in  the  number  of  small 
farms,  and  a  decrease  in  the  average  acreage,  is 
shown  hi  almost  all  the  states.  The  increase  of 
great  estates  shown  by  the  census  figures  probably 
bears  little  or  no  relation  to  real  farming,  consisting 
mainly  of  great  stock  grazing  ranches  in  the  West, 
and  unproductive  gentlemen's  estates  in  the  East. 

Apparently  then,  the  Socialist  theory  of  "the 
big  fish  eat  up  the  little  ones,"  is  not  applicable  to 
agriculture.  On  the  contrary,  it  seems  that  the 
great  wheat  ranch  cannot  compete  with  the  smaller 
farm.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that  writers 
so  sympathetic  to  Socialism  as  Professor  Werner 
Sombart,  and  Professor  Richard  T.  Ely,  should  pro- 
claim that  the  Marxian  system  breaks  down  when 
it  reaches  the  sphere  of  agricultural  industry,  and 
that  it  appears  to  be  applicable  only  to  manufacture. 
That  is  the  position  which  has  been  taken  by  a  not 
inconsiderable  body  of  Socialists  in  recent  years. 
Nothing  is  more  delusive  than  statistical  argument 
of  this  kind,  and  while  these  conclusions  should  be 
given  due  weight,  they  should  not  be  too  hastily 
accepted.  An  examination  of  the  statistical  basis 
of  the  argument  may  not  confirm  the  argument. 

In  the  first  place,  small  agricultural  holdings  do 
not  necessarily  imply  economic  independence  any 


110  SOCIALISM 

more  than  do  petty  industries  or  businesses.  When 
we  examine  the  census  figures  carefully,  the  first 
important  fact  which  challenges  attention  is  the 
decrease  of  independent  farm  ownership,  and  a  cor- 
responding increase  hi  tenantry.  Of  the  5,739,657 
farms  hi  the  United  States  hi  the  census  year,  2,026,286 
were  operated  by  tenants.  In  1880,  71.6  per  cent 
of  the  farms  hi  the  United  States  were  operated  by 
then1  owners,  while  hi  1900  the  proportion  had 
fallen  to  64.7  per  cent.  Concerning  the  ownership 
of  these  rented  farms  little  investigation  has  been 
made,  and  it  is  probable  that  careful  inquiry  into 
the  subject  would  elicit  the  fact  that  this  forms  a 
not  unimportant  aspect  of  agricultural  concentra- 
tion, though  it  is  not  revealed  by  the  census  figures. 
So,  too,  with  the  mortgaged  farm  holdings.  In 
1890,  the  mortgaged  indebtedness  of  the  farmers 
of  the  United  States  amounted  to  the  immense  sum 
of  $1,085,995,960.  Concerning  the  ownership  of 
these  mortgages  also  little  accurate  data  has  been 
gathered.  It  is  well  known  that  the  great  insurance, 
banking,  and  trust  companies  have  many  millions 
invested  hi  them.  Mr.  A.  M.  Simons,  to  whose  not- 
able little  book,  The  American  Farmer,1 1  am  indebted 
for  much  material,  rightly  regards  this  as  "a  form 
of  concentration  beside  which  that  of  the  bonanza 
farms  sinks  into  insignificance." 

1  The  American  Farmer,  by  A.  M.  Simons,  page  120. 


CAPITALISM  AND   LAW  OF  CONCENTRATION      111 

The  truth  is  that  industrial  concentration  may 
take  other  forms  than  the  diminution  of  small  in- 
dustrial units,  and  their  absorption  or  supercession 
by  larger  units.  The  sweated  trades  are  a  familiar 
example  of  this  fact.  Over  and  over  it  has  been 
shown  that  while  small  establishments  remain  a 
necessary  condition  of  sweated  industry,  there  is 
generally  a  concentration  of  ownership  and  control. 
This  is  true  hi  a  large  measure  of  the  retail  trades, 
and  in  even  larger  measure  of  agriculture.  Mani- 
festly, therefore,  we  need  a  more  accurate  defini- 
tion of  concentration  than  the  one  generally  accepted. 
Mr.  Simons,  in  the  work  already  quoted,  defines  con- 
centration as  "a  movement  tending  to  give  a  con- 
tinually diminishing  minority  of  the  persons  engaged 
in  any  industry,  a  constantly  increasing  control 
over  the  essentials,  and  a  continually  increasing 
share  of  the  total  value  of  the  returns  of  the  nidus- 
try,"  1  It  is  no  part  of  the  purpose  of  this  chapter 
to  discuss  the  several  conditions  which  Mr.  Simons 
lays  down  in  his  definition  of  concentration,  but  to 
emphasize  the  fact  that  there  are  other  forms  of 
concentration  than  the  physical  one,  the  amalga- 
mation of  smaller  units  to  form  larger  ones;  and 
that  concentration  goes  on  often  unperceived  and 
unsuspected.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  there 
is  a  considerable  tendency  to  the  concentration  of 

1  The  American  Farmer,  page  97. 


112  SOCIALISM 

ownership     and    effective    control    in    agricultural 
industry. 

There  is  also  a  vast  amount  of  concentration  in 
agricultural  production  which  is  not  generally  recog- 
nized. Many  branches  of  farming  industry,  as  it 
was  carried  on  by  our  fathers  and  their  fathers  be- 
fore them,  have  been  transferred  from  the  farm- 
house to  the  factory.  Butter  and  cheese  making, 
for  example,  have  largely  passed  out  of  the  farm 
kitchen  into  the  factory.  Not  long  ago,  the  writer 
stayed  for  some  days  at  a  large  farm  in  the  Middle 
West.  The  sound  of  a  churn  is  never  heard  there, 
notwithstanding  that  it  is  a  "dairy  farm,"  and  all 
the  butter  and  cheese  consumed  in  that  household 
is  bought  at  the  village  store.  The  invention  of 
labor-saving  machinery  and  its  application  to  agri- 
culture leads  to  the  division  of  the  industry  and  the 
absorption  of  the  parts  most  influenced  by  the  new 
processes  by  the  factory.  When  we  remember  the 
tremendous  role  which  complex  mechanical  agen- 
cies play  hi  modern  agricultural  industry,  the  grain 
elevators,  cold-storage  houses,  and  even  railroads, 
being  part  of  the  necessary  equipment  of  produc- 
tion, we  see  the  subject  of  concentration  in  agri- 
culture in  a  new  light.  There  is  much  concentration 
of  production  in  agriculture  though  it  may  take  the 
form  of  the  absorption  of  some  of  its  processes  by 
factories  instead  of  by  other  farms. 


CAPITALISM   AND   LAW   OF  CONCENTRATION      113 


We  must  distinguish  between  the  concentration 
of  industry  and  the  concentration  of  wealth.  While 
there  is  a  natural  relation  between  these  two  phe- 
nomena, they  are  by  no  means  identical.  Trustifi- 
cation of  a  given  industry  may  bring  together  a  score 
of  industrial  units  hi  one  gigantic  concern,  so  con- 
centrating capital  and  production;  but  it  is  conceiv- 
able that  every  one  of  the  owners  of  the  units  which 
compose  the  trust  may  have  a  share  in  it  equal  to 
the  capital  value  of  his  particular  unit,  and  far  more 
profitable.  In  that  case,  there  can  obviously  be 
no  concentration  of  wealth.  It  may  even  happen 
that  a  larger  number  of  persons  participate,  as 
shareholders,  hi  the  amalgamation  than  previously. 
Concentration  of  wealth  may  be  very  ultimately 
and  inextricably  associated  with  concentration  of 
capital,  but  it  is  not  by  any  means  the  same  thing. 
As  Professor  Ely  says:  "If  the  stock  of  the  United 
States  Steel  Corporation  were  owned  by  individuals 
holding  one  share  each,  the  concentration  hi  industry 
would  be  just  as  great  as  it  is  now,  but  there  would 
be  a  wide  diffusion  hi  the  ownership  of  the  wealth 
of  the  corporation." 1 

Obvious  as  this  distinction  may  seem,  it  is  very 

1  Studies  in  the  Evolution  of  Industrial  Society,  by  Richard  T.  Ely, 
page  255. 


114  SOCIALISM 

often  lost  sight  of,  and  when  recognized,  it  presents 
difficulties  which  seem  almost  insurmountable.  It 
is  well-nigh  impossible  to  present  statistically  the 
relation  of  the  concentration  of  capital  to  the  con- 
centration or  diffusion  of  wealth,  important  as  the 
point  is  in  its  bearings  upon  modern  Socialist  theory. 
While  the  distinction  does  not  affect  the  argument 
that  the  concentration  of  capital  and  industry 
makes  their  socialization  possible,  it  is  nevertheless 
an  important  fact.  If,  as  some  writers,  notably 
Bernstein,1  the  Socialist,  have  argued,  the  concen- 
tration of  capital  and  industry  really  leads  to  the 
decentralization  of  wealth,  and  the  diffusion  of  the 
advantages  of  concentration  among  the  great  mass 
of  the  people,  then,  instead  of  creating  a  class  of 
expropriators,  ever  becoming  less  numerous,  and  a 
class  of  proletarians,  ever  growing  in  numbers,  the 
tendency  of  modern  capitalism  is  to  distribute  the 
gains  of  industry  over  a  widening  area,  a  process 
of  democratization,  in  fact.  Obviously,  if  this  con- 
tention is  a  correct  one,  there  must  be  a  softening 
rather  than  an  intensifying  of  class  antagonisms: 
a  tendency  away  from  class  divisions,  and  to  greater 
satisfaction  with  present  conditions,  rather  than 
increasing  discontent.  If  this  theory  can  be  sus- 
tained, the  advocates  of  Socialism  will  be  obliged 

1  Die  Voraussetzungen   des   Sozialismus,    by   Edward    Bernstein, 
page  47. 


CAPITALISM  AND  LAW  OF  CONCENTRATION      115 

to  change  the  nature  of  their  propaganda,  and  cease 
appealing  to  the  class  interest  of  the  proletariat 
because  it  has  no  existence  in  fact.  There  can  be 
no  validity  in  the  theory  of  an  increasing  antagonism 
of  classes,  if  the  tendency  of  modern  capitalism  is 
to  democratize  the  life  of  the  world  and  diffuse  its 
wealth  over  larger  social  areas  than  ever  before. 

The  exponents  of  this  theory  have  for  the  most 
part  based  their  arguments  upon  statistical  data 
relating  to:  (1)  The  number  of  taxable  incomes  in 
countries  where  incomes  are  taxed;  (2)  the  number 
of  investors  in  industrial  and  commercial  com- 
panies; (3)  the  number  of  savings  bank  deposits. 
As  often  happens  when  reliance  is  placed  upon  the 
direct  statistical  method,  the  result  of  all  the  dis- 
cussion and  controversy  upon  this  subject  is  ex- 
tremely disappointing  and  confusing.  The  same 
figures  are  used  to  support  both  sides  in  the  dispute 
with  equal  plausibility.  The  difficulty  lies  hi  the 
fact  that  the  available  statistics  do  not  include  all 
the  facts  essential  to  a  scientific  and  conclusive  result. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  in  this  little  volume  to  add 
to  the  Babel  of  voices  in  this  discussion,  but  to  pre- 
sent the  conclusions  of  two  or  three  of  the  most 
careful  investigators  in  this  field.  Professor  Rich- 
ard T.  Ely  l  quotes  a  table  of  incomes  in  the  Grand 

1  Studies  in  the  Evolution  of  Industrial  Society,  by  Richard  T.  Ely, 
pages  261-262. 


116  SOCIALISM 

Duchy  of  Baden,  based  on  the  income  tax  returns 
of  that  country,  which  has  formed  the  theme  of 
much  dispute.  The  table  shows  that  in  the  two 
years,  1886  and  1896,  less  than  one  per  cent  of  the 
incomes  assessed  were  over  10,000  marks  a  year, 
and  from  that  fact  it  has  been  argued  that  wealth 
in  that  country  has  not  been  concentrated  to  any 
very  great  extent.  In  like  manner,  the  French 
economist,  Leroy  Beaulieu,  has  argued  that  the 
fact  that  hi  1896  only  2750  persons  in  Paris  had 
incomes  of  over  100,000  francs  a  year  betokens  a 
wide  diffusion  of  wealth  and  an  absence  of  concen- 
tration.1 But  the  important  point  of  the  discus- 
sion, the  proportion  of  total  wealth  owned  by  these 
classes,  is  entirely  lost  sight  of  by  those  who  argue  in 
this  way.  In  the  figures  for  the  Grand  Duchy  of 
Baden  we  have  no  particulars  concerning  the  num- 
ber and  amount  of  incomes  below  500  marks,  but 
of  the  persons  assessed  upon  incomes  of  500  marks 
and  over,  in  1886,  the  poorest  two  thirds  had  about 
one  third  of  the  total  assessed  income,  and  the  rich- 
est .69  of  one  per  cent  had  12.78  per  cent  of  the  total 
income.  So  far,  the  figures  show  a  much  greater 
concentration  of  wealth  than  appears  from  the  simple 
fact  that  less  than  one  per  cent  of  the  incomes  as- 
sessed were  over  10,000  marks  a  year.  When  we 

1  Essai  sur  la  repartition  des  richesses  et  sur  la  tendance  a  une 
moindre  inegalite  des  conditions,  par  Leroy  Beaulieu,  page  564. 


CAPITALISM   AND   LAW   OF   CONCENTRATION       117 

compare  the  two  years,  we  find  that  this  concentra- 
tion increased  during  ten  years  as  follows:  In  1886, 
there  were  2212  incomes  of  more  than  10,000  marks 
assessed,  being  .69  of  one  per  cent  of  the  total  num- 
ber. In  1896,  there  were  3099  incomes  of  more  than 
10,000  marks  assessed,  being  .78  of  one  per  cent  of 
the  total  number.  In  1886,  .69  of  one  per  cent  of 
the  incomes  assessed  amounted  to  51,403,000  marks, 
representing  12.77  per  cent  of  the  total  incomes 
assessed,  while  in  1896,  .78  of  one  per  cent  of  the 
incomes  assessed  amounted  to  81,986,000  marks, 
representing  15.02  per  cent  of  the  total  incomes 
assessed.  In  1886,  there  were  18  incomes  of  over 
200,000  marks  a  year,  aggregating  6,864,000  marks, 
1.70  per  cent  of  the  total  value  of  all  incomes  as- 
sessed; in  1896,  there  were  28  such  incomes,  aggre- 
gating 12,481,000  marks,  or  2.29  per  cent  of  the 
total  value  of  all  incomes  assessed.  The  increase 
of  concentration  is  not  disputable. 

According  to  the  late  Professor  Richmond  Mayo- 
Smith,1  70  per  cent  of  the  population  of  Prussia 
have  incomes  below  the  income  tax  standard,  their 
total  income  representing  only  one  third  of  the  total 
income  of  the  population.  An  additional  one 
fourth  of  the  population  enjoys  one  third  of  the 
total  income,  while  the  remaining  one  third  goes 

1  Statistics  and  Economics,  by  Richmond  Mayo-Smith,  Book  III, 
Distribution. 


118  SOCIALISM 

to  about  4  per  cent  of  the  people.  The  significance 
of  these  figures  is  clearly  shown  by  the  following 
diagram :  — 

DIAGRAM 
SHOWING  THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  INCOME  BY  CLASSES  IN  PRUSSIA. 

SHARE  OF  EACH 
CLASS  IN  THE 
POPULATION  BY  CLASSES  NATIONAL  INCOME 


In  Saxony  the  statistics  show  that  "two  thirds 
of  the  population  possess  less  than  one  third  of  the 
income;  and  that  3.5  per  cent  of  the  upper  incomes 
receive  more  than  66  per  cent  at  the  lower  end." 
From  a  table  prepared  by  Sir  Robert  Giffen,  a  no- 
toriously optimistic  statistician,  always  the  expo- 
nent of  an  ultra-roseate  view  of  social  conditions, 
Professor  Mayo-Smith  l  concludes  that  in  England, 
"about  10  per  cent  of  the  people  receive  nearly  one 
half  of  the  total  income." 

In  this  country  the  absence  of  income  tax  figures 
makes  it  impossible  to  get  direct  statistical  evidence 
as  to  the  distribution  of  incomes.  The  most  care- 
ful estimate  of  the  distribution  of  wealth  in  the  United 

1  Statistics  and  Economics,  by  Richmond  Mayo-Smith,  Book  III, 
Distribution. 


CAPITALISM  AND  LAW  OF  CONCENTRATION      119 

States  yet  made  is  that  made  by  the  late  Dr.  Charles 
B.  Spahr.1  In  quoting  Dr.  Spahr's  figures,  however, 
I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  accepting  them 
as  authoritative  and  conclusive.  They  are  quoted 
simply  as  the  conclusions  reached  by  the  most  pa- 
tient, conscientious,  and  scientific  examination  of 
the  distribution  of  wealth  in  this  country  yet  made. 
Dr.  Spahr's  conclusion  is  that  less  than  one  half 
of  the  families  in  the  United  States  are  property- 
less;  but  that,  nevertheless,  seven  eighths  of  the 
families  own  only  one  eighth  of  the  national  wealth, 
while  1  per  cent  of  the  families  own  more  than  the 
remaining  99  per  cent.  Professor  Ely  accepts  the 
logic  of  the  statistical  data  gathered  in  Europe  and 
the  United  States,  and  says  "such  statistics  as  we 
have  ...  all  indicate  a  marked  concentration  of 
wealth,  both  in  this  country  and  Europe."  2 

The  growth  of  immense  private  fortunes  is  an 
indisputable  evidence  of  the  concentration  of  wealth. 
In  1855,  according  to  a  list  published  in  the  New 
York  Sun,3  there  were  only  twenty-eight  millionaires 
in  the  whole  country,  and  a  pamphlet  published  in 
Philadelphia  ten  years  before  that,  in  1845,  gave  only 
ten  estates  valued  at  a  million  dollars  or  more.  The 
richest  of  these  estates  was  that  of  Stephen  Girard, 

1  The  Present  Distribution  of  Wealth  in  the  United  States,  by  Charles 
B.  Spahr  (1896). 

2  Studies  in  the  Evolution  of  Industrial  Society,  page  265. 
8  Quoted  by  Cleveland  Moffett  in  Success,  January,  1906. 


120  SOCIALISM 

whose  fortune  was  said  to  be  $7,000,000.  To-day 
it  is  estimated  that  there  are  more  than  five  thou- 
sand millionaires  in  the  United  States,  New  York 
City  alone  claiming  upward  of  two  thousand.  Not 
only  has  the  number  of  these  immense  fortunes 
grown,  but  the  size  of  individual  fortunes  has  enor- 
mously increased.  Mr.  John  D.  Rockefeller  is  cred- 
ited by  some  of  the  most  conservative  financial 
experts  in  the  country  with  the  possession  of  a  for- 
tune amounting  to  a  billion  dollars,  a  sum  too  vast 
to  be  comprehended.  Mr.  Waldron  estimates  that 
one  twentieth  of  the  families  in  the  United  States 
are  receiving  "one-third  of  the  nation's  annual 
income,  and  are  able  to  absorb  nearly  two  thirds 
of  the  annual  increase  made  in  the  wealth  of  the 
nation." l  To  the  unbiased  observer,  nothing  is 
more  strikingly  evident  than  the  concentration  of 
wealth  in  the  United  States  during  the  past  few  years. 


VI 


Summing  up,  we  may  state  the  argument  of  this 
chapter  very  briefly  as  follows :  The  Socialist  theory 
is  that  competition  is  self-destructive,  and  that  the 
inevitable  result  of  the  competitive  process  is  to 
produce  monoply,  either  through  the  crushing  of 
the  weak  by  the  strong,  or  the  combination  of  units 

1  Currency  and  Wealth,  by  George  S.  Waldron,  page  102. 


CAPITALISM  AND  LAW  OF  CONCENTRATION      121 

as  a  result  of  a  conscious  recognition  of  the  wastes 
of  competition  and  the  advantages  of  cooperation. 
The  law  of  capitalist  development,  therefore,  is  from 
competition  and  division  to  combination  and  con- 
centration. As  this  concentration  proceeds,  a  large 
class  of  proletarians  is  formed  on  the  one  hand  and 
a  small  class  of  capitalist  lords  on  the  other,  an  es- 
sential antagonism  of  interests  existing  between 
the  two  classes.  While  Socialism  does  not  preclude 
the  continued  existence  of  small  private  industry 
or  business,  it  does  require  and  depend  upon  the 
development  of  a  large  body  of  concentrated  industry ; 
monopolies  which  can  be  consciously  transformed 
into  social  monopolies,  whenever  the  people  so 
decide. 

The  interindustrial  and  international  trustifica- 
tion of  industry  and  commerce  shows  a  remarkable 
fulfillment  of  the  law  of  capitalist  concentration 
which  the  Socialists  were  the  first  to  formulate; 
the  existence  of  petty  industries  and  businesses, 
or  their  increase  even,  being  a  relatively  insignifi- 
cant matter  compared  with  the  enormous  increase 
in  large  industries  and  businesses.  In  agriculture, 
concentration,  while  it  does  not  proceed  so  rapidly 
or  directly  as  in  manufacture  and  commerce,  and 
while  it  takes  directions  unforeseen  by  the  Social- 
ists, proceeds  surely  nevertheless.  Along  with 
this  concentration  of  capital  and  industry  proceeds 


122  SOCIALISM 

the  concentration  of  wealth  into  proportionately 
fewer  hands.  While  a  certain  diffusion  of  wealth 
takes  place  through  the  mechanism  of  industrial 
concentration  which  affords  numerous  small  invest- 
ors an  opportunity  to  own  shares  in  great  indus- 
trial and  commercial  corporations,  it  is  not  sufficient 
to  balance  the  expropriation  which  goes  on  in  the 
competitive  struggle,  and  it  is  true  that  a  larger 
proportion  of  the  national  wealth  is  owned  by  a  minor- 
ity of  the  population  than  ever  before,  that  minor- 
ity being  proportionately  less  numerous  than  ever 
before. 

Whatever  defects  there  may  be  hi  the  Marxian 
theory,  and  whatever  modifications  of  it  may  be 
rendered  necessary  by  changed  conditions,  it  is  per- 
fectly certain  that  in  its  main  and  essential  features 
it  has  successfully  withstood  all  the  criticisms  which 
have  been  directed  against  it.  Economic  literature 
is  full  of  prophecies,  but  in  its  whole  range  there  is 
not  an  instance  of  prophecy  more  literally  fulfilled 
than  that  which  Marx  made  concerning  the  mode 
of  capitalist  development.  And  Karl  Marx  was 
not  a  prophet  —  he  but  read  clearly  the  meaning  of 
certain  facts  which  others  could  not  read ;  the  law  of 
social  dynamics.  That  is  not  prophecy,  but  science. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   CLASS   STRUGGLE   THEORY 

I 

THERE  is  probably  no  part  of  the  theory  of  modern 
Socialism  which  has  called  forth  so  much  criticism 
and  opposition  as  the  doctrine  of  the  class  struggle. 
Many  who  are  otherwise  sympathetic  to  Socialism 
denounce  this  doctrine  as  narrow,  brutal,  and  pro- 
ductive of  antisocialistic  feelings  of  class  hatred. 
Upon  all  hands  the  doctrine  is  denounced  as  an 
un-American  appeal  to  passion,  and  a  wild  exag- 
geration of  social  conditions.  The  insistence  of 
Socialists  upon  this  aspect  of  their  propaganda  is 
probably  responsible  for  keeping  as  many  people  out- 
side their  ranks  as  are  at  the  present  time  identified 
with  their  movement.  In  other  words,  if  the  Social- 
ists would  repudiate  the  doctrine  that  Socialism  is  a 
class  movement,  and  make  their  appeal  to  the  intelli- 
gence and  conscience  of  all,  instead  of  to  the  inter- 
ests of  a  class,  they  could  probably  double  their 
numerical  strength  at  once.  To  many,  therefore,  it 

123 


124  SOCIALISM 

seems  a  fatuous  and  quixotic  policy  to  preach  such 
a  doctrine,  and  it  is  very  commonly  ascribed  to  the 
peculiar  intellectual  and  moral  myopia  of  fanati- 
cism. 

Before  accepting  such  a  conclusion,  the  reader  is 
in  duty  bound  to  consider  the  Socialist  side  of  the 
argument.  There  is  no  greater  fanaticism,  after 
all,  than  that  which  condemns  what  it  does  not 
take  the  trouble  to  understand.  The  Socialists 
claim  that  the  doctrine  is  misrepresented;  that  it 
does  not  produce  class  hatred ;  and  that  it  is  a  pivo- 
tal and  vital  point  of  Socialist  philosophy.  The 
class  struggle  is  a  law,  they  say,  of  social  develop- 
ment. We  only  recognize  the  law,  and  are  no  more 
responsible  for  its  existence  than  Newton  was  re- 
sponsible for  the  law  of  gravitation.  We  know 
that  there  were  class  struggles  thousands  of  years 
before  there  was  a  Socialist  movement,  and  it  is 
therefore  absurd  to  charge  us  with  the  creation  of 
class  antagonisms  and  class  hatred.  We  realize 
perfectly  well  that  if  we  would  ignore  this  law  hi 
our  propaganda,  and  make  our  appeal  to  a  univer- 
sal sense  of  abstract  justice  and  truth,  many  who 
now  hold  aloof  from  us  would  join  our  movement. 
But  we  should  not  gain  strength  as  a  result  of  their 
accession  to  our  ranks.  We  should  be  obliged  to 
emasculate  Socialism,  to  dilute  it,  in  order  to  win  a 
support  of  questionable  value.  And  history  teems 


THE   CLASS   STRUGGLE  THEORY  125 

with  examples  of  the  disaster  which  inevitably  at- 
tends such  a  course.  We  should  be  quixotic  and 
fatuous  indeed  if  we  attempted  anything  of  the 
kind. 

The  class  struggle  theory  is  part  of  the  economic 
interpretation  of  history.  Since  the  dissolution  of 
primitive  tribal  society,  the  modes  of  economic 
production  and  exchange  have  inevitably  grouped 
men  into  economic  classes.  The  theory  is  thus 
stated  by  Engels  in  the  Introduction  to  the  Com- 
munist Manifesto:  — 

"In  every  historical  epoch,  the  prevailing  mode 
of  economic  production  and  exchange,  and  the  social 
organization  necessarily  following  from  it,  form  the 
basis  upon  which  is  built  up,  and  from  which  alone 
can  be  explained,  the  political  and  intellectual  his- 
tory of  that  epoch;  and,  consequently,  the  whole 
history  of  mankind  (since  the  dissolution  of  primi- 
tive society,  holding  land  in  common  ownership) 
has  been  a  history  of  class  struggles,  contests  be- 
tween exploiting  and  exploited,  ruling  and  oppressed 
classes ;  that  the  history  of  these  class  struggles  forms 
a  series  of  evolution  hi  which,  nowadays,  a  stage 
has  been  reached,  where  the  exploited  and  oppressed 
class  —  the  proletariat  —  cannot  attain  its  eman- 
cipation from  the  sway  of  the  exploiting  and  ruling 
class  —  the  bourgeoisie  —  without,  at  the  same 
tune,  and  once  for  all,  emancipating  society  at  large 


126  SOCIALISM 

from  all  exploitation,  oppression,  class  distinction, 
and   class  struggles."  * 

In  this  classic  statement  of  the  theory,  there  are 
several  fundamental  propositions.  First,  that  class 
divisions  and  class  struggles  arise  out  of  the  eco- 
nomic foundations  of  society,  ^egond,  that  since  the 
dissolution  of  primitive  tribal  society,  which  was 
communistic  in  character,  mankind  has  been  divided 
into  economic  groups  or  classes,  and  all  its  history 
has  been  a  history  of  struggles  between  these  classes, 
ruling  and  ruled,  exploiting  and  exploited,  being 
forever  at  war  with  each  other.  -Ihiix^  that  the 
different  epochs  in  human  history,  stages  in  the 
evolution  of  society,  have  been  characterized  by 
the  interests  of  the  ruling  class.  Fourth,  that  a 
stage  has  now  been  reached  in  the  evolution  of  so- 
ciety, where  the  struggle  assumes  a  form  which 
makes  it  impossible  for  class  distinctions  and  class 
struggles  to  continue  if  the  exploited  and  oppressed 
class,  the  proletariat,  succeeds  in  emancipating  it- 
self. In  other  words,  the  cycle  of  class  struggles 
which  began  with  the  dissolution  of  rude,  tribal 
communism,  and  the  rise  of  private  property,  ends 
with  the  passing  of  private  property  in  the  means 
of  social  existence  and  the  rise  of  Socialism.  The 
proletariat  in  emancipating  itself  destroys  all  the 
conditions  of  class  rule. 

1  The  Communist  Manifesto,  Kerr  edition,  page  8. 


THE  CLASS  STKUGGLE  THEORY  127 

II 

As  we  have  already  seen,  slavery  is  historically 
the  first  system  of  class  division  which  presents  it- 
self. Some  ingenious  writers  have  endeavored  to 
trace  the  origin  of  slavery  to  the  institution  of  the 
family,  the  children  being  the  slaves.  It  is  fairly 
certain,  however,  that  slavery  originated  in  con- 
quest. When  a  tribe  was  conquered  and  enslaved 
by  some  more  powerful  tribe,  all  the  members  of 
the  vanquished  tribe  sunk  to  one  common  level  of 
degradation  and  servility.  Their  exploitation  as 
laborers  was  the  principal  object  of  their  enslave- 
ment, and  then-  labor  admitted  of  little  gradation. 
It  is  easy  to  see  the  fundamental  class  antagonisms 
which  characterized  slavery.  Had  there  been  no 
uprisings  of  the  slaves,  no  active  and  conscious 
struggle  against  their  masters,  the  antagonism  of 
interests  between  them  and  their  masters  would  be 
none  the  less  apparent.  But  the  overthrow  of 
slavery  was  not  the  result  of  the  rebellions  and 
struggles  of  the  slaves.  While  these  undoubtedly 
helped,  the  principal  factors  in  the  overthrow  of 
chattel  slavery  as  the  economic  foundation  of  society 
were  the  disintegration  of  the  system  to  the  point 
of  bankruptcy,  and  the  rise  of  a  new,  and  sometimes, 
as  in  the  case  of  Rome,  alien  ruling  class. 

The  class  divisions  of  feudal  society  are  not   less 


128  SOCIALISM 

obvious  than  those  of  chattel  slavery.  The  main 
division,  the  widest  gulf,  divided  the  feudal 
lord  and  the  serf.  Often  as  brutally  ill-treated  as 
their  slave-chattel  forefathers  had  been,  the  feudal 
serfs  from  time  to  time  made  abortive  struggles. 
The  class  distinctions  of  feudalism  were  constant, 
but  the  struggles  between  the  lords  and  the 
serfs  were  sporadic,  and  of  little  moment,  just 
as  the  risings  of  their  slave  forefathers  had  been. 
But  alongside  of  the  feudal  estate  there  existed 
another  class,  the  free  handicraftsmen  and  peasants, 
the  former  organized  into  powerful  guilds.  It  was 
this  class  which  was  to  challenge  the  rule  of  the 
feudal  nobility,  and  wage  war  upon  it.  As  the  feudal 
ruling  class  was  a  landed  class,  so  the  class  represented 
by  the  guilds  became  a  moneyed  and  commercial 
class,  the  pioneers  of  our  modern  capitalist  class. 
As  Mr.  Brooks  Adams  1  has  shown  very  clearly,  it 
was  this  moneyed,  commercial  class,  which  gave 
to  the  king  the  instrument  for  weakening  and 
finally  overthrowing  feudalism.  It  was  this  class 
which  built  up  the  cities  and  towns  from  which  was 
drawn  the  revenue  for  the  maintenance  of  a  stand- 
ing army.  The  capitalist  class  triumphed  over  the 
feudal  nobility  and  its  interests  became  the  domi- 
nant interests  in  society.  Capitalism  effectually  de- 

1  In  Centralization  and  the  Law :  Scientific  Legal  Education.    An 
Illustration.     Edited  by  Melville  M.  Bigelow. 


THE  CLASS  STRUGGLE  THEORY  129 

stroyed  all  the  institutions  of  feudalism  which  ob- 
structed its  progress,  leaving  only  those  which  were 
innocuous  and  to  be  safely  ignored. 

In  capitalist  society,  the  main  class  division  is 
that  which  separates  the  employing,  wage-paying 
class  from  the  employed,  wage-receiving  class. 
Notwithstanding  all  the  elaborate  arguments  made 
to  prove  the  contrary,  the  frequently  heard  myth 
that  the  interests  of  Capital  and  Labor  are  identical, 
and  the  existence  of  pacificatory  associations  based 
upon  that  myth,  there  is  no  fact  in  the  whole  range 
of  social  phenomena  more  self-evident  than  the 
existence  of  an  inherent,  fundamental  antagonism 
in  the  relationship  of  employer  and  employee.  As 
individuals,  in  all  other  relations,  they  may  have 
a  commonality  of  interests,  but  as  employer  and 
employee  they  are  fundamentally  and  necessarily 
opposed.  They  may  belong  to  the  same  church, 
and  so  have  religious  interests  in  common ;  they 
may  have  common  racial  interests,  as,  for  instance, 
if  negroes,  hi  protecting  themselves  against  the 
attacks  of  the  author  of  The  Clansman,  or,  if  Jews, 
in  opposing  anti-Semitic  movements;  as  citizens 
they  may  have  the  same  civic  interests,  be  equally 
opposed  to  graft  in  the  city  government,  or  equally 
interested  in  the  adoption  of  wise  sanitary  precau- 
tions against  epidemics.  They  may  even  have  a 
common  industrial  interest  in  the  general  sense  that 


130  SOCIALISM 

they  may  be  equally  interested  in  the  development 
of  the  industry  in  which  they  are  engaged,  and  fear, 
equally,  the  results  of  a  depression  in  trade.  But 
in  their  special  relations  as  employer  and  employee 
they  have  antithetical  interests. 

The  interest  of  the  wage-worker,  as  wage-worker, 
is  to  receive  the  largest  wage  possible  for  the  least 
number  of  hours  spent  in  labor.  The  interest  of 
the  employer,  as  employer,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
to  secure  from  the  worker  as  many  hours  of  service, 
as  much  labor  power,  as  possible  for  the  lowest 
wage  which  the  worker  can  be  induced  to  accept. 
The  workers  employed  hi  a  factory  may  be  divided 
by  a  hundred  different  forces.  They  may  be  divided 
by  racial  differences,  for  instance;  but  while  pre- 
serving those  differences  in  a  large  measure,  they 
will  tend  to  unite  upon  the  question  of  their  imme- 
diate economic  interest.  Some  of  our  great  labor 
unions,  notably  the  United  Mine  Workers,1  afford 
remarkable  illustrations  of  this  fact.  If  the  divi- 
sion is  caused  by  religious  differences,  the  same 
unanimity  of  economic  interests  will  sooner  or  later 
be  developed.  With  the  employers  it  is  the  same. 
They,  too,  may  be  divided  by  a  hundred  forces; 
the  competition  among  them  may  be  keen  and  fierce, 
but  common  economic  interest  will  tend  to  unite 

1  See,  for  instance,  The  Coal  Mine  Workers,  by  Frank  Julian 
Warne,  Ph.D.  (1905). 


THE   CLASS  STRUGGLE  THEORY  131 

them.  Racial,  religious,  social,  and  other  divisions 
may  be  maintained  as  before,  but  they  will,  in  gen- 
eral, unite  for  the  protection  and  furtherance  of  their 
common  economic  interests. 

That  individual  workers  and  employers  will  be 
found  who  do  not  recognize  their  class  interests  is 
true,  but  that  fact  by  no  means  invalidates  the  con- 
tention that,  in  general,  men  will  recognize  and  unite 
upon  a  basis  of  common  class  interests.  In  both 
classes  are  to  be  found  individuals  who  attach  greater 
importance  to  the  preservation  of  racial,  religious, 
or  social,  rather  than  economic,  interests.  But 
because  the  economic  interest  is  fundamental,  in- 
volving the  very  basis  of  life,  the  question  of  food, 
clothing,  shelter,  and  comfort,  these  individuals 
are  and  must  be  exceptions  to  the  general  rule. 
Workers  sink  their  racial  and  religious  differences 
and  unite  to  secure  better  wages,  a  reduction  of  the 
hours  of  labor,  and  better  conditions  in  general. 
Employers,  similarly,  unite  to  oppose  whatever 
may  threaten  their  class  interests,  without  regard 
to  other  relationships.  The  Gentile  employer  who 
is  himself  an  anti-Semite  has  no  qualms  of  conscience 
about  employing  Jewish  workmen,  at  low  wages, 
to  compete  with  Gentile  workers;  he  does  not  ob- 
ject to  joining  with  Jewish  employers  in  an  Employ- 
ers' Association,  if  thereby  his  economic  interests 
may  be  safeguarded.  And  the  Jewish  employer, 


132  SOCIALISM 

likewise,  has  no  objection  to  joining  with  the  Gentile 
employer  for  mutual  protection,  or  to  the  employ- 
ment of  Gentile  workers  to  fill  the  places  of  his  em- 
ployees, members  of  his  own  race,  who  have  gone 
out  on  strike  for  higher  wages. 


Ill 


The  class  struggle,  therefore,  presents  itself  in 
the  present  stage  of  social  development  as  a  conflict 
between  the  wage-paying  and  the  wage-paid  classes. 
That  is  the  dominating  and  all-absorbing  conflict 
of  the  age  in  which  we  live.  True,  there  are  other 
class  interests  more  or  less  involved.  There  are  the 
indefinite,  inchoate,  vague,  and  uncertain  interests 
of  that  large,  so-called  middle  class,  composed  of 
farmers,  retailers,  professional  men,  and  so  on.  The 
interests  of  this  large  class  are  not,  and  cannot  be, 
as  definitely  defined.  They  vacillate,  conforming 
now  to  the  interests  of  the  wage-workers,  now  to 
the  interests  of  the  employers.  The  farmer,  for 
instance,  may  oppose  an  increase  in  the  wages  of 
farm  laborers,  because  that  touches  him  directly 
as  an  employer.  His  attitude  is  that  of  the  capi- 
talist class  as  a  whole  upon  that  question.  At  the 
same  time,  he  may  be  heartily  in  favor  of  an  in- 
crease of  wages  to  miners,  carpenters,  bricklayers, 
shoemakers,  printers,  painters,  factory  workers,  and 


THE   CLASS   STRUGGLE  THEORY  133 

non-agricultural  workers  in  general,  for  the  reason 
that  while  a  general  rise  of  wages,  resulting  in  a 
general  rise  in  prices,  will  affect  him  slightly  as  a 
consumer,  it  will  benefit  him  much  more  as  a  seller 
of  the  products  of  his  farm.  In  short,  consciously 
sometimes,  but  unconsciously  oftener  still,  personal 
or  class  interests  control  our  thoughts,  opinions, 
beliefs,  and  actions. 

This  does  not  mean  that  men  are  never  actuated 
by  other  than  selfish  motives ;  that  a  sordid  mate- 
rialism is  the  only  motive  force  at  work  in  the  world. 
In  general,  class  interests  and  personal  interests 
coincide,  but  there  are  certainly  occasions  when  they 
conflict.  Many  an  employer,  having  no  quarrel 
with  his  employees,  and  confident  that  he  personally 
will  be  the  loser  thereby,  joins  in  a  fight  upon  labor 
unions  because  he  is  conscious  that  the  interests  of 
his  class  are  involved.  In  a  similar  way,  working- 
men  enter  upon  sympathetic  strikes,  consciously, 
at  an  immediate  loss  to  themselves,  because  they 
place  class  loyalty  before  personal  gam.  It  is  sig- 
nificant of  class  feeling  and  temper  that  when  em- 
ployers act  in  this  manner,  and  lock  out  employees 
with  whom  they  have  no  trouble,  simply  to  help 
other  employers  to  win  their  battles,  they  are  be- 
lauded by  the  very  newspapers  which  denounce  the 
workers  whenever  they  adopt  a  like  policy.  It  is 
also  true  that  there  are  individuals  hi  both  classes 


134  SOCIALISM 

who  never  become  conscious  of  their  class  interests, 
and  steadfastly  refuse  to  join  with  their  fellows. 
The  workingman  who  refuses  to  join  a  union,  or 
who  "scabs"  when  his  fellow-workers  go  out  on 
strike,  may  act  from  ignorance  or  from  sheer  self- 
ishness and  greed.  His  action  may  be  due  to  his 
placing  personal  interest  before  the  larger  interest 
of  his  class,  or  from  being  too  short-sighted  to  see 
that  ultimately  his  own  interests  must  merge  in 
those  of  his  class.  Many  an  employer,  on  the  other 
hand,  may  refuse  to  join  in  any  concerted  action  of 
his  class  for  either  of  these  reasons,  or  he  may  even 
rise  superior  to  his  personal  and  class  interests  and 
support  the  workers  because  he  believes  in  the  just- 
ness of  their  cause,  realizing  perfectly  well  that 
their  gain  means  loss  to  him  or  to  his  class.1 

The  influence  of  class  environment  upon  men's 
beliefs  and  ideals  is  a  subject  which  our  most  volu- 
minous ethicists  have  scarcely  touched  upon  as  yet. 
It  is  a  commonplace  saying  that  each  age  has  its 
own  standards  of  right  and  wrong,  but  little  effort 
has  been  made,  if  we  except  the  Socialists,2  to  trace 
this  fact  to  its  source,  to  the  economic  conditions 


1  This  ought  to  be  a  sufficient  answer  to  those  shallow  critics  who 
think    that    they  dispose  of  the  class    struggle  theory  of    modern 
Socialism  by  enumerating  those  of  its  leading  exponents  who  do  not 
belong  to  the  proletariat. 

2  Mr.  Ghent's  excellent  work,  Mass  and  Class,  is  perhaps  the  best 
work  extant  on  the  subject  from  the  Socialist  viewpoint. 


THE   CLASS   STRUGGLE  THEORY  135 

prevailing  in  the  different  ages.  Still  less  effort 
has  been  made  to  account  for  the  different  standards 
held  by  the  different  social  classes  at  the  same  time, 
and  by  which  each  class  judges  the  other.  In  our 
own  day  the  idea  of  slavery  is  generally  held  hi 
abhorrence.  There  was  a  time,  however,  when  it 
was  universally  looked  upon  as  a  divine  institution, 
alike  by  slaveholder  and  slave.  It  is  simply  impos- 
sible to  account  for  this  complete  revolution  of  feel- 
ing upon  any  other  hypothesis  than  that  slave 
labor  then  seemed  absolutely  essential  to  the  life 
of  the  world.  The  slave  lords  of  antiquity,  the 
feudal  lords  of  mediaeval  times,  and,  more  recently, 
the  Southern  slaveholders  hi  our  own  country,  all 
believed  that  slavery  was  eternally  right.  When 
the  slaves  took  an  opposite  view  and  rebelled,  they 
were  believed  to  be  in  rebellion  against  God  and 
nature.  The  Church  represented  the  same  view 
just  as  vigorously  as  it  now  opposes  it.  The  slave 
owners  who  held  slavery  to  be  a  divine  institution, 
and  the  priests  and  ministers  who  supported  them, 
were  just  as  honest  and  sincere  in  then*  belief  as  we 
are  in  holding  antagonistic  beliefs  to-day. 

What  was  accounted  a  virtue  in  the  slave,  was 
accounted  a  vice  in  the  slaveholder.  Cowardice 
and  a  cringing  humility  were  not  regarded  as  faults 
in  a  slave.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  the  stock 
virtues  of  the  pattern  slave,  and  added  to  the  esti- 


136  SOCIALISM 

mation  in  which  he  was  held,  just  as  similar  traits 
are  valued  in  personal  servants  —  butlers,  valets, 
footmen,  and  similar  flunkeys  —  in  our  own  day. 
But  similar  traits  in  the  feudal  baron,  the  Southern 
slaveholder,  or  the  "gentleman"  of  to-day,  would 
be  regarded  as  terrible  faults.  As  Mr.  Algernon 
Lee  very  tersely  puts  it,  "The  slave  was  not  a  slave 
because  of  his  slavish  ideals  and  beliefs;  the  slave 
was  slavish  in  his  ideals  and  beliefs  because  he  lived 
the  life  of  a  slave."  * 


IV 


To-day  we  find  a  similar  divergence  of  ethical 
standards.  What  the  laborers  regard  as  wrong, 
the  employers  regard  as  absolutely  and  immutably 
right.  The  actions  of  the  workers  in  forming  unions 
and  compelling  unwilling  members  of  their  own 
class  to  join  them,  even  resorting  to  the  bitter  expe- 
dient of  striking  against  them  with  a  view  to  starv- 
ing them  into  submission,  seem  terribly  oppressive 
and  unjust  to  the  employers  and  the  class  to  which 
the  employers  belong.  To  the  workers  themselves, 
on  the  other  hand,  such  actions  have  all  the  sanc- 
tions of  conscience.  Similarly,  many  actions  of 
the  employers,  in  which  they  themselves  see  no 

1  The  Worker,  March  25,  1905. 


THE  CLASS   STRUGGLE  THEORY  137 

wrong,    seem    almost    incomprehensibly   wicked    to 
the  workers. 

Leaving  aside  the  wholesale  fraud  of  our  ordi- 
nary commercial  advertisements,  the  shameful  adul- 
teration of  goods,  and  a  multitude  of  other  such 
nefarious  practices,  it  is  at  once  interesting  and  in- 
structive to  compare  the  employers'  denunciations 
of  the  "outrageous  infringement  of  personal  liberty," 
when  the  "oppressor"  is  a  labor  union,  with  some 
of  their  everyday  practices.  The  same  employers 
who  loudly,  and  quite  sincerely,  condemn  the  mem- 
bers of  a  union  who  endeavor  to  bring  about  the 
discharge  of  a  fellow-worker  because  he  declines  to 
join  their  organization,  have  no  scruples  of  conscience 
about  discharging  a  worker  simply  because  he  be- 
longs to  a  union,  and  effectually  "  blacklisting "  him 
so  that  it  becomes  almost  or  quite  impossible  for 
him  to  obtain  employment  at  his  trade  elsewhere. 
While  loudly  declaiming  against  the  "conspiracy" 
of  the  workers  to  raise  wages,  they  see  no  wrong  in 
an  "agreement"  of  manufacturers  or  mine  owners 
to  reduce  wages.  If  the  members  of  a  labor  union 
should  break  the  law,  especially  if  they  should  com- 
mit an  act  of  violence  during  a  strike,  the  organs 
of  capitalist  opinion  teem  with  denunciation,  but 
there  is  no  breath  of  condemnation  for  the  outrages 
committed  by  employers  or  their  agents  against 
union  men. 


138  SOCIALISM 

During  the  great  anthracite  coal  strike  of  1903, 
and  again  during  the  disturbances  in  Colorado  in 
1904,  it  was  evident  to  every  fair-minded  observer 
that  the  mine  owners  were  at  least  quite  as  lawless 
and  violent  as  the  strikers.  But  there  was  hardly 
a  scintilla  of  adverse  comment  upon  the  mine  owners' 
lawlessness  hi  the  organs  of  capitalist  opinion,  while 
they  poured  forth  torrents  of  righteous  indignation 
at  the  lawlessness  of  the  miners.  When  labor 
leaders,  like  the  late  Sam  Parks,  for  example,  are 
accused  of  extortion  and  receiving  bribes,  the  em- 
ployers and  then'  retainers,  through  pulpit,  press, 
and  every  other  avenue  of  public  opinion,  denounce 
the  culprit,  the  bribe  taker,  in  unmeasured  terms  — 
but  the  bribe  giver  is  excused,  or,  at  worst,  lightly 
criticised.  These  are  but  a  few  common  illustra- 
tions of  class  conscience.  Any  careful  observer  will 
be  able  to  add  almost  indefinitely  to  the  number. 

It  would  be  perfectly  easy  to  compile  a  large  cata- 
logue of  such  examples  as  these  from  the  actual 
happenings  of  the  past  few  years  —  sufficient  to 
convince  the  most  skeptical  that  class  interests  do 
produce  a  class  conscience.  Mr.  Ghent  aptly  ex- 
presses a  profound  truth  when  he  says:  "There  is  a 
spiritual  alchemy  which  transmutes  the  base  metal 
of  self-interest  into  the  gold  of  conscience ;  the  trans- 
mutation is  real,  and  the  resulting  frame  of  mind 
is  not  hypocrisy,  but  conscience.  It  is  a  class  con- 


THE   CLASS  STRUGGLE  THEORY  139 

science,  and  therefore  partial  and  imperfect,  having 
little  to  do  with  absolute  ethics.  But  partial  and 
imperfect  as  it  is,  it  is  generally  sincere."  *  No 
better  test  of  the  truth  of  this  can  be  made  than  by 
reading  carefully  for  a  few  weeks  the  comments  of 
half  a  dozen  representative  newspapers,  and  of  an 
equal  number  of  representative  labor  papers,  upon 
current  events.  The  antithetical  nature  of  their 
judgments  of  men  and  events  demonstrates  the 
existence  of  a  distinct  class  conscience.  It  cannot 
be  interpreted  in  any  other  way. 


A  great  many  people,  while  admitting  the  impor- 
tant role  class  struggles  have  played  in  the  progres- 
sive development  of  the  race,  strenuously  deny  the 
existence  of  classes  in  the  United  States.  They 
freely  admit  the  class  divisions  and  struggles  of  the 
Old  World,  but  they  deny  that  a  similar  class  antag- 
onism exists  hi  this  country;  they  fondly  believe 
the  United  States  to  be  a  glorious  exception  to  the 
rule,  and  regard  the  claim  that  classes  exist  here  as 
falsehood  and  treason.  The  Socialists  are  forever 
being  accused  of  seeking  to  apply  to  American  life 
judgments  based  upon  European  facts  and  condi- 
tions. It  is  easy  to  visualize  the  class  divisions 

1  Mass  and  Class,  page  101. 


140  SOCIALISM 

existing  in  monarchical  countries,  where  there  are 
hereditary  ruling  classes  —  even  though  these  are 
only  nominal  ruling  classes  hi  most  cases  —  fixed 
by  law.  But  it  is  not  so  easy  to  recognize  the  fact 
that,  even  in  these  countries,  the  power  is  held  by 
the  financial  and  industrial  lords,  and  not  by  the 
kings  and  their  titular  nobility.  The  absence  of 
a  hereditary,  titular  ruling  class  serves  to  hide  the 
real  class  divisions  existing  in  this  country  from  many 
people. 

Nevertheless,  there  is  a  perceptible  growth  of 
uneasiness  and  unrest;  a  widening  and  deepening 
conviction  that  while  we  may  retain  the  outward 
forms  of  democracy,  and  shout  its  shibboleths  with 
patriotic  fervor,  its  essentials  are  lacking.  The 
feeling  spreads,  even  in  the  most  conservative  circles, 
that  we  are  developing,  or  have  already  developed, 
a  distinct  ruling  class.  The  anomaly  of  a  ruling 
class  without  legal  sanction  or  titular  prestige  has 
seized  upon  the  popular  mind;  titles  have  been 
created  for  our  great  "untitled  nobility"  —mock 
titles,  which  have  speedily  assumed  a  serious  im- 
port and  meaning.  Our  financial  "Kings,"  indus- 
trial "Lords,"  "Barons,"  and  so  on,  have  received 
their  crowns  and  patents  of  nobility  from  the  popu- 
lace. President  Roosevelt  gives  expression  to  the 
feelings  of  a  great  mass  of  our  most  conservative 
citizenry  when  he  says:  "In  the  past,  the  most  dire- 


THE   CLASS   STRUGGLE   THEORY  141 

ful  among  the  influences  which  have  brought  about 
the  downfall  of  republics  has  ever  been  the  growth 
of  the  class  spirit.  ...  If  such  a  spirit  grows  up 
in  this  republic,  it  will  ultimately  prove  fatal  to  us, 
as  in  the  past  it  has  proven  fatal  to  every  community 
in  which  it  has  become  dominant."  l 

With  the  exception  of  the  chattel  slaves,  we  have 
had  no  hereditary  class  hi  this  country  with  a  legally 
fixed  status.  But 

"Man  is  more  than  constitutions," 

and  there  are  other  laws  than  those  formulated  in 
senates  and  recorded  in  statute  books.  The  vast 
concentration  of  industry  and  wealth,  resulting  in 
immense  fortunes  on  the  one  hand,  and  terrible 
poverty  on  the  other,  has  separated  the  two  classes 
by  a  chasm  as  deep  and  wide  as  ever  yawned  between 
czar  and  moujik,  kaiser  and  vagrant,  prince  and 
pauper,  feudal  baron  and  serf.  The  immensity  of 
the  power  and  wealth  thus  concentrated  into  the 
hands  of  the  few,  to  be  inherited  by  their  sons  and 
daughters,  tends  to  establish  this  class  division  heredi- 
tarily. Heretofore,  passage  from  the  lower  class  to 
the  class  above  has  been  easy,  and  it  has  blinded 
people  to  the  existing  class  antagonisms,  though,  as 
Mr.  Ghent  justly  observes,  it  should  no  more  be 
taken  to  disprove  the  existence  of  classes  than  the 

1  Message  to  Congress,  January,  1906. 


142  SOCIALISM 

fact  that  so  many  thousands  of  Germans  come  to 
this  country  to  settle  is  taken  to  disprove  the  exis- 
tence of  the  German  Empire.1 

But  passage  from  the  lower  class  to  the  upper 
tends  to  become,  if  not  absolutely  impossible  and 
unthinkable,  as  difficult  and  rare  as  the  transition 
from  pauperism  to  princedom  hi  the  Old  World  is. 
A  romantic  European  princess  may  marry  a  penu- 
rious coachman,  and  so  provide  the  world  with  a 
nine  days'  sensation,  but  such  instances  are  no  rarer 
in  the  royal  circles  of  Europe  than  in  our  own  pluto- 
aristocratic  court  circles.  Has  there  ever  been  a 
king  hi  modern  times  with  anything  like  the  power 
of  Mr.  Rockefeller?  Is  any  feature  of  royal  recog- 
nition withheld  from  Mr.  Morgan  when  he  goes  abroad 
in  state,  an  uncrowned  king,  fraternizing  with  crowned 
but  envious  fellow-kings?  The  existence  of  classes 
in  America  to-day  is  as  evident  as  the  existence  of 
America  itself. 


VI 


Antagonisms  of  class  interests  have  always  ex- 
isted, even  though  not  clearly  recognized.  It  is 
only  the  consciousness  of  their  existence,  and  the 
struggle  produced  by  that  consciousness,  that  are 
new.  As  we  suddenly  become  aware  of  the  pain  and 

1  Mass  and  Class,  page  53. 


THE  CLASS  STRUGGLE  THEORY  143 

ravages  of  disease,  when  we  have  not  felt  or  heeded 
its  premonitory  symptoms,  so,  having  neglected 
the  fundamental  class  divisions  of  society,  the  bit- 
terness of  the  strife  resulting  therefrom  shocks  and 
alarms  us.  So  long  as  it  is  possible  for  the  stronger 
and  more  ambitious  members  of  an  inferior  class  to 
rise  out  of  that  class  and  join  the  ranks  of  the  supe- 
rior class,  so  long  will  the  struggle  which  ensues  as 
the  natural  outgrowth  of  opposing  interests  be  post-^ 
poned. 

Until  quite  recently,  in  the  United  States,  this 
has  been  possible.  Transition  from  the  status  of 
worker  to  that  of  capitalist  has  been  easy.  But 
with  the  era  of  concentration  and  the  immense  capi- 
tals required  for  industrial  enterprise  these  transi- 
tions become  fewer  and  more  difficult,  ar  d  class  lines 
thus  tend  to  become  permanently  fixed.  The  stronger 
and  more  ambitious  members  of  the  lower  class, 
finding  it  impossible  to  rise  into  the  class  above, 
thus  become  impressed  with  a  consciousness  of  their 
class  status.  The  average  worker  no  longer  dreams 
of  himself  becoming  an  employer  after  a  few  years 
of  industry  and  thrift.  The  ambitious  and  aggres- 
sive few  no  longer  look  with  the  contempt  of  the 
strong  for  the  weak  upon  their  less  aggressive  fellow- 
workers,  but  become  leaders,  preachers  of  a  sig- 
nificant and  admittedly  dangerous  gospel  of  class 
consciousness. 


144  SOCIALISM 

When  the  preachers  are  wise  and  sufficiently  edu- 
cated to  see  their  position  in  its  historical  perspec- 
tive, there  is  no  class  hatred  engendered  in  the  sense 
of  a  personal  hatred  for  the  capitalist  on  the  part  of 
the  worker.  But  when  that  wisdom  and  education 
are  lacking,  personal  hate  and  bitterness  naturally 
result.  The  Socialists,  accused  as  they  are  of  seek- 
ing to  stir  up  hatred  and  strife,  by  placing  the  class 
struggle  in  its  proper  place  as  one  of  the  great  social 
dynamic  forces,  have  done  and  are  doing  more  to 
allay  hatred  and  bitterness  of  feeling,  to  save  the 
world  from  the  red  curse  of  anarchistic  vengeance, 
than  any  other  body  of  people  in  the  world.  The 
Socialist  movement  is  vastly  more  powerful  as  a 
force  against  the  peril  of  Anarchism  than  all  the 
religious  agencies  of  the  world  combined.  Wherever, 
as  in  Germany,  for  example,  the  Socialist  movement 
is  strong,  Anarchism  is  impotent  and  weak.  The 
reason  for  this  is  the  very  obvious  one  here  given. 


VII 


Nowhere  in  the  world,  at  any  time  in  its  history, 
has  the  alignment  of  classes  been  more  evident  than 
it  is  in  the  United  States  at  the  present  time.  With 
an  average  of  over  a  thousand  strikes  a  year,1  some 

1  Vide  War  of  the  Classes,  by  Jack  London,  page  17. 


THE   CLASS   STRUGGLE  THEORY  145 

of  them  involving,  directly,  tens  of  thousands  of 
producers,  a  few  capitalists,  and  millions  of  non- 
combatants,  consumers;  with  strikes,  boycotts, 
lockouts,  injunctions,  and  all  the  other  incidents  of 
organized  class  strife  reported  daily  by  the  news- 
papers, denials  of  the  existence  of  classes,  or  of  the 
struggle  between  them,  are  manifestly  absurd.  We 
have,  on  the  one  hand,  organizations  of  workers, 
labor  unions,  with  a  membership  of  something  over 
2,000,000  in  the  United  States;  one  organization 
alone,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  having 
an  affiliated  membership  of  1,700,000.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  have  organizations  of  employers, 
formed  for  the  expressed  purpose  of  fighting  the 
labor  unions,  of  which  the  National  Association  of 
Manufacturers  is  the  most  perfect  type  yet  evolved. 
While  the  leaders  on  both  sides  frequently  deny 
that  their  organizations  betoken  the  existence  of  a 
far-reaching  fundamental  class  conflict,  and,  through 
ostensibly  pacificatory  organizations  like  the  Na- 
tional Civic  Federation,  proclaim  the  "essential  iden- 
tity of  interests  between  capital  and  labor";  while 
an  intelligent  and  earnest  labor  leader  like  Mr.  John 
Mitchell  joins  with  an  astute  capitalist  leader  like 
the  late  Senator  Marcus  A.  Hanna  in  declaring 
that  "there  is  no  necessary  hostility  between  labor 
and  capital,"  that  there  is  no  "necessary,  fundamen- 
tal antagonism  between  the  laborer  and  the  capi- 


146  SOCIALISM 

talist,"  *  a  brief  study  of  the  constitutions  of  these 
class  organizations  and  their  published  reports,  in 
conjunction  with  the  history  of  the  labor  struggle  in 
the  United  States,  in  which  the  names  of  Coeur  de 
Alene,  Homestead,  Hazelton,  and  Cripple  Creek 
appear  in  bloody  letters,  will  show  these  denials 

I  to  be  the  offspring  of  hypocrisy  or  delusion.  If  this 
/  much-talked-of  unity  of  interests  is  anything  but  a 
stupid  fiction,  the  great  and  ever  increasing  strife 
is  only  a  question  of  mutual  misunderstanding. 
All  that  is  necessary  to  secure  permanent  peace  is 
to  remove  that  misunderstanding.  If  we  believe 
this,  it  is  a  sad  commentary  upon  human  limita- 
tions, upon  man's  failure  to  understand  his  own 
Me,  that  not  a  single  person  on  either  side  has  arisen 
with  sufficient  intelligence  and  breadth  of  view  to 
state  the  relations  of  the  two  classes  with  clarity 
and  force  enough  to  accomplish  that  end. 

Let  us  get  down  to  fundamentals,  to  bottom  prin- 
ciples.2   Why    do    men    organize?    Why    was    the 
first  union  started?    Why  do  men  pay  out  of  their 
A      hard-earned  wages  to  support    unions  now?     The 
first  union  was  not  started  because  the  men  who 
^       started  it  did  not  understand  their  employers,   or 

\    because  they  were  misunderstood  by  their  employers. 


1  Organized  Labor,  by  John  Mitchell,  page  ix. 

2  The  remainder  of  this  chapter  is  largely  reproduced  from  my 
little  pamphlet,  Shall  the  Unions  go  into  Politics  f 


THE   CLASS   STRUGGLE   THEORY  147 

The  explanation  involves  a  deeper  insight  into  things 
than  that.  The  facts  were  somewhat  as  follows: 
When  the  individual  workingman,  feeling  that  out 
of  his  labor,  and  the  labor  of  his  fellows,  came  the 
wealth  and  luxury  of  his  employer,  demanded  higher 
wages,  a  reduction  of  his  hours  of  labor,  or  better 
conditions  in  general,  he  was  met  with  a  reply  from 
his  employer  —  who  understood  the  workingman's 
position  very  well,  much  better,  in  fact,  than  the 
workingman  himself  did  —  something  like  this, 
"If  you  don't  like  this  job,  and  my  terms,  you  can 
quit ;  there  are  plenty  of  others  outside  ready  to  take 
your  place."  The  workingman  and  the  employer, 
then,  understood  each  other  perfectly.  The  em- 
ployer understood  the  position  of  the  worker,  that 
he  was  dependent  upon  him,  the  employer,  for  oppor- 
tunity to  earn  his  bread.  The  worker  understood  that 
so  long  as  the  employer  could  discharge  him  and  fill 
his  place  with  another,  he  was  powerless.  The  com- 
bat between  the  workers  and  the  masters  of  their 
bread  has  from  the  first  been  an  unequal  one. 

Nothing  remained  for  the  individual  workingman 
but  to  join  his  fellows  in  a  collective  and  united  effort. 
So  organizations  of  workers  appeared,  and  the 
employers  could  not  treat  the  matter  as  lightly  as 
before  when  the  workers  demanded  higher  wages 
or  other  improvements  in  their  conditions.  The 
workers,  when  they  organized,  could  take  advantage 


148  SOCIALISM 

of  the  fact  that  there  were  no  organizations  of  the 
employers.  Every  strike  added  to  the  ordinary 
terrors  of  the  competitive  struggle  for  the  employers. 
The  manufacturer  whose  men  threatened  to  strike 
often  surrendered  because  he  feared  most  of  all  that 
his  trade,  in  the  event  of  a  suspension  of  work,  would 
be  snatched  by  his  rival  in  business,  and  so,  by  playing 
upon  the  inherent  weakness  of  the  competitive  sys- 
tem as  it  affected  the  employers,  the  workers  gained 
many  substantial  advantages.  There  is  no  doubt 
whatsoever  that  under  these  conditions  the  wage- 
workers  got  better  wages,  better  working  conditions, 
and  a  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor.  It  was,  in  many 
ways,  the  golden  age  of  organized  labor.  But  there 
was  an  important  limitation  of  the  workers'  power  — 
the  unions  could  not  absorb  the  man  outside;  they 
could  not  provide  all  the  workers  with  employment. 
That  is  the  essential  condition  of  capitalist  industry, 
there  is  always  the  "reserve  army  of  the  unemployed," 
to  use  the  expressive  phrase  of  Friedrich  Engels. 
Rare  indeed  are  the  times  when  all  the  available 
workers  in  any  given  industry  are  employed,  and 
the  time  has  probably  never  yet  been  when  all  the 
available  workers  hi  all  industries  were  employed. 
Notwithstanding  this  important  limitation  of  power, 
it  is  incontrovertible  that  the  workers  were  benefited 
by  their  organization  to  no  small  extent.  But  only 
for  a  time.  There  came  a  time  when  the  employers 


THE  CLASS   STRUGGLE  THEORY  149 

began  to  organize  unions  also.  That  they  called 
their  organizations  by  other  and  high-sounding  names 
does  not  alter  the  fact  that  they  were  in  reality  unions 
formed  to  combat  the  unions  which  the  workers  had 
formed.  Every  employers'  association  is,  in  reality, 
a  union  of  the  men  who  employ  labor  against  the 
unions  of  the  men  they  employ.  When  the  organized 
workers  went  to  individual,  unorganized  employers, 
who  feared  their  rivals  more  than  they  feared  the 
workers,  or,  rather,  who  feared  the  workers  most 
of  all  because  rivals  waited  to  snatch  their  trade,  be- 
cause a  strike  made  their  employees  allies  with  their 
competitors,  the  employers  were  afraid,  naturally, 
to  resist.  The  workers  could  play  one  employer 
against  the  other  with  constant  success.  But  when 
the  employers  also  organized,  it  was  different.  Then 
the  individual  employer,  freed  from  the  worst  of  his 
terrors,  could  say,  "Do  your  worst.  I,  too,  am  in 
an  organization."  Then  it  became  a  battle  betwixt 
organized  capital  and  organized  labor.  When  the 
workers  went  on  strike  in  one  shop  or  factory,  de- 
pending for  support  upon  their  brother  unionists 
employed  in  other  shops  or  factories,  the  employers 
of  these  latter  locked  them  out,  thus  cutting  off 
the  financial  supplies  of  the  strikers.  In  other  cases, 
when  the  workers  in  one  place  went  out  on  strike, 
the  employer  got  his  work  done  through  other 
employers  by  the  very  fellow-members  upon  whom 


150  SOCIALISM 

the  strikers  were  depending  for  support.  Thus  the 
workers  were  compelled  to  face  this  dilemma,  either 
to  withdraw  these  men,  thus  cutting  off  their  means 
of  support,  or  to  be  beaten  by  their  fellow-members. 

Under  these  changed  conditions,  the  workers  were 
beaten  time  after  time.  It  was  a  case  of  the  worker's 
cupboard  against  the  master's  warehouse,  purse 
against  bank  account,  poverty  against  wealth.  How 
slight  the  workers'  chances  are  in  such  a  combat! 
A  strike  means  that  the  workers  on  one  side,  and 
the  employers  on  the  other,  seek  to  tire  each  other 
out  by  waiting.  More  truthfully,  perhaps,  it  might  be 
said  that  they  seek  to  force  each  other  by  wait- 
ing patiently  to  see  who  first  feels  the  pinch  of 
hardship  and  poverty.  Employers  and  employees 
determine  to  play  the  waiting  game.  Each  waits 
patiently  in  the  hope  that  the  other  will  weaken.  At 
last  one  —  most  often  the  workers'  —  side  weakens 
and  gives  up  the  struggle.  When  the  workers  are 
thus  beaten  in  a  strike,  they  are  not  convinced  that 
their  demands  are  unreasonable  or  unjust;  they  are 
simply  beaten  at  the  waiting  game  because  their 
resources  are  too  small  to  enable  them  to  withstand 
the  struggle. 

When  the  master  class,  the  masters  of  jobs  and 
bread,  organized  their  forces,  they  set  narrow  and 
sharp  boundaries  to  the  power  of  labor  organizations. 
Henceforth  the  chances  of  victory  were  overwhelm- 


THE   CLASS   STRUGGLE  THEORY  151 

ingly  on  the  side  of  the  employers.  The  workers 
have  since  learned  by  bitter  and  costly  experience 
that  they  are  unable  to  play  the  individual  employer's 
interests  against  other  employers'  interests.  And 
the  employers  own  the  means  of  life.  Meantime, 
too,  they  have  learned  that  they  are  not  only  ex- 
ploited as  producers,  but  also  as  buyers,  as  consumers. 
Because  they  are  consumers,  almost  to  the  last  penny 
of  their  incomes,  having  to  spend  almost  every  penny 
earned,  that  form  of  exploitation  becomes  a  serious 
matter.  But  against  this  exploitation  the  unions 
have  ever  been  absolutely  powerless.  Working- 
men  have  never  made  any  very  serious  attempt  to 
protect  the  purchasing  capacity  of  their  wages, 
notwithstanding  its  tremendous  importance.  The 
result  has  been  that  not  a  few  of  the  "victories"  so 
dearly  won  by  trade  union  action  have  turned  out 
to  be  hollow  mockeries.  When  they  have  succeeded 
in  getting  a  little  better  wages,  prices  have  often 
gone  up,  most  often  in  point  of  fact,  so  that  the  net 
result  has  been  little  to  their  advantage.  In  many 
cases,  where  the  advance  in  wages  applied  only  to 
a  restricted  number  of  trades,  the  advance  in  prices 
becoming  general,  the  total  result  has  been  against 
the  working  class  as  a  whole,  and  little  or  nothing  to 
the  advantage  of  the  few  who  received  the  advance 
in  immediate  wages.  At  this  point,  the  need  of  a 
social  revolution  is  felt,  which  shall  give  to  the  workers 


152  SOCIALISM 

the  control  of  the  implements  of  labor,  and  also  the 
full  control  of  the  product  of  their  labor.  In  other 
words,  the  demand  arises  for  independent,  working- 
class  action,  aiming  at  the  socialization  of  the  means 
of  production  and  the  things  produced. 

VIII 

A  line  of  cleavage  thus  presents  itself  between 
those,  on  the  one  hand,  who  would  continue  the  old 
methods  of  economic  warfare,  together  with  the  ad- 
vocates of  a  revolution  of  physical  force,  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  advocates  of  united  political 
action  on  the  part  of  the  working  class,  consciously 
directed  toward  the  socialization  of  industry  and  its 
products.  The  400,000  odd  Socialist  votes  in  the 
United  States,  in  1904,  represented  the  measure  of 
the  crystallization  of  this  latter  force,  and  whoever 
has  studied  the  labor  movement  during  the  past  few 
years  must  have  realized  that  there  is  a  tremendous 
drift  of  sentiment  in  that  direction  in  the  labor  unions 
of  the  country.  The  clamor  for  political  action  in 
the  labor  unions  presages  an  enormous  advance 
of  the  political  Socialist  movement  during  the  next 
few  years 

The  struggle  between  capital  and  labor  thus 
promises  to  resolve  itself  into  a  political  issue,  the 
greatest  political  issue  of  history.  This  will  not  be 


THE   CLASS   STEUGGLE  THEORY  153 

due  so  much  to  the  propaganda  of  the  Socialists,  it 
is  safe  to  say,  as  to  the  action  of  the  employers  them- 
selves. They  have  taken  the  struggle  into  the  politi- 
cal arena  to  suit  their  own  immediate  advantages, 
and  when  the  workers  realize  the  issue  and  accept 
it,  the  capitalists  will  not  be  able  to  thwart  them. 
One  is  reminded  of  the  saying  of  Marx  that  capital- 
ism produces  its  own  gravediggers.  In  taking  the 
industrial  issue  into  the  political  arena,  the  capital- 
ists were  destined  to  reveal  to  the  workers,  sooner 
or  later,  their  power  and  duty. 

Realizing  that  all  the  forces  of  government  are 
on  their  side,  the  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive 
powers  being  controlled  by  their  own  class,  the  em- 
ployers have  made  the  fight  against  labor  political 
as  well  as  economic  in  its  character.  When  the 
workers  have  gone  on  strike  and  the  employers  have 
not  cared  to  play  the  "waiting  game,"  choosing 
rather  to  avail  themselves  of  the  great  reserve  army  of 
the  unemployed  workers  outside,  the  natural  resent- 
ment of  the  strikers,  finding  themselves  in  danger  of 
being  beaten  by  members  of  their  own  class,  has  led 
to  violence  which  has  been  remorselessly  suppressed  by 
all  the  police  and  military  forces  at  the  command  of 
the  government.  In  many  instances,  the  employers 
have  themselves  purposely  provoked  striking  work- 
men to  violence,  and  then  called  upon  the  govern- 
ment to  crush  the  revolt  thus  made.  Workers 


154  SOCIALISM 

have  thus  been  shot  down  at  the  shambles  in  almost 
every  state  of  the  Union,  no  matter  which  politi- 
cal party  has  been  in  power.  Nor  have  these  forces 
of  our  class  government  been  used  merely  to  punish 
lawless  union  men  and  women  on  strike,  to  "uphold 
the  sacred  majesty  of  the  law,"  as  the  hypocritical 
phrase  goes.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  have  been 
used  to  deny  strikers  the  rights  which  belonged  to 
them,  and  to  protect  capitalists  and  their  agents  in 
breaking  the  laws.  No  one  can  read  with  anything 
like  an  impartial  spirit  the  records  of  the  miners' 
strike  in  the  Coeur  de  Alene  mine,  Idaho,  or  the 
Senate  Report  on  the  Labor  Disturbances  in  Colorado 
from  1880  to  1904,  and  dispute  this  assertion. 

More  important  still,  the  workers  have  had  to  face 
the  powerful  opposition  of  the  makers  and  inter- 
preters of  the  law.  A  body  of  class  legislation,  in 
the  interests  of  the  employing  class,  has  been  created, 
while  the  workers  have  begged  in  vain  for  protective 
legislation.  There  is  no  country  in  the  world  in 
which  the  interests  of  the  workers  have  been  so 
neglected  as  in  the  United  States.  There  is  practi- 
cally no  such  thing  as  employers'  liability  for  ac- 
cidents to  the  workers ;  there  is  no  legislation  worthy 
of  mention  relating  to  the  occupations  which  have 
been  classified  as  "dangerous"  in  most  industrially 
developed  countries;  women  workers  are  sadly  neg- 
lected. Whenever  a  law  is  passed  of  distinct  advan- 


THE   CLASS  STRUGGLE  THEORY  155 

tage  to  the  workers,  a  servile  judiciary  has  been  ready 
to  render  it  null  and  void  by  declaring  it  to  be  uncon- 
stitutional. No  more  powerful  blows  have  ever 
been  directed  against  the  workers  than  those  which 
have  been  directed  by  the  judiciary.  Injunction 
upon  injunction  has  been  issued,  robbing  the  workers 
of  the  most  elemental  rights  of  manhood  and  citizen- 
ship. They  have  forbidden  what  the  Constitution 
and  statute  law  declare  to  be  legal. 

Mr.  John  Mitchell  refers  in  his  Organized  Labor 
to  this  subject,  hi  strong  but  not  too  strong  terms. 
"No  weapon,"  he  says,  "has  been  used  with  such 
disastrous  effect  against  trade  unions  as  the  injunc- 
tion in  labor  disputes.  By  means  of  it,  trade  union- 
ists have  been  prohibited  under  severe  penalties  from 
doing  what  they  had  a  legal  right  to  do,  and  have 
been  specifically  directed  to  do  what  they  had  a  legal 
right  not  to  do.  It  is  difficult  to  speak  hi  measured 
tones  or  moderate  language  of  the  savagery  and 
venom  with  which  unions  have  been  assailed  by  the 
injunction,  and  to  the  working  classes,  as  to  all  fair- 
minded  men,  it  seems  little  less  than  a  crime  to  con- 
done or  tolerate  it."  1  This  is  strong  language,  but 
who  shall  say  that  it  is  too  strong  when  we  remem- 
ber the  many  inj  unctions  which  have  been  hurled  at 
organized  labor  since  the  famous  Debs  case  brought 
this  new  and  terrible  weapon  into  requisition? 

1  Organized  Labor,  by  John  Mitchell,  page  324. 


156  SOCIALISM 

Members  of  the  International  Cigarmakers'  Union, 
in  New  York  City,  were  enjoined  some  six  years  ago, 
by  Justice  Freeman,  from  approaching  the  employers 
against  whom  they  were  striking,  even  with  a  view 
to  arranging  a  peaceable  settlement.  There  was 
no  breach  of  the  peace,  actual  or  threatened,  to 
justify  such  a  monstrous  use  of  judicial  power.  The 
cigar  makers  were  also  enjoined  from  publishing 
their  grievances,  notwithstanding  that  all  the  time 
the  employers  were  publishing  their  side  of  the 
controversy.  In  the  great  steel  strike,  five  years 
ago,  the  members  of  the  Amalgamated  Association 
of  Iron  and  Steel  Workers  were  enjoined  from  peace- 
ably discussing  the  merits  of  then*  claim  with  the 
men  who  were  at  work,  even  though  the  latter  might 
raise  no  objection.  In  the  strike  of  the  Interna- 
tional Typographical  Union  against  the  Buffalo  Ex- 
press, the  strikers  were  enjoined  from  discussing  the 
strike  or  talking  about  the  paper  hi  any  way  which 
might  be  construed  as  being  against  the  paper. 
If  one  of  the  strikers  advised  a  friend,  or  requested 
him,  not  to  buy  a  "scab"  paper,  he  was  liable  under 
the  terms  of  that  injunction.  The  members  of  the 
same  union  were,  by  Justice  Bookstaver,  on  the 
application  of  the  New  York  Sun,  enjoined  from 
publishing  their  side  of  the  controversy  as  an  argu- 
ment why  persons  friendly  to  organized  labor  should 
not  advertise  in  a  paper  hostile  to  it.  To-day,  as 


THE    CLASS    STRUGGLE   THEORY  157 

these  lines  are  being  written,1  the  New  York  daily 
papers  contain  the  text  of  an  injunction,  issued  by  Su- 
preme Court  Justice  Gildersleeve,  enjoining  members 
of  the  same  union  from  "making  any  requests,  giving 
any  advice,  or  resorting  to  any  persuasion  ...  to 
overcome  the  exercise  of  the  free  will  of  any  person 
connected  with  the  plaintiff  [a  notorious  anti-union- 
ist publishing  company]  or  its  customers  as  em- 
ployees or  otherwise."  These  are  only  a  few  of 
thousands  of  injunctions,  hundreds  of  them  equally 
monstrous  and  subversive  of  all  sound  principles  of 
popular  government.  There  is  not  another  country 
in  the  world  where  such  judicial  tyranny  would  be 
tolerated.  It  is  not  without  significance  that  in  West 
Virginia,  where,  in  1898,  the  legislature  passed  a 
law  limiting  the  right  to  issue  injunctions,  the  Su- 
preme Court  decided  that  the  law  was  unconstitu- 
tional, on  the  ground  that  the  legislature  had  no 
right  to  attempt  to  restrain  the  courts  which  were 
coordinate  with  itself. 

Even  more  dangerous  to  organized  labor  than  the 
injunction  is  what  is  popularly  known  as  "Taff  Vale 
law."  Our  judges  have  not  been  slow  to  follow  the 
lines  laid  down  by  English  judges  in  the  famous  case 
of  the  Taff  Vale  Railway  Company  against  the  of- 
ficers of  the  Amalgamated  Society  of  Railway  Ser- 

1  January  31,  1906. 


158  SOCIALISM 

vants,  a  powerful  labor  organization.  The  decision 
in  that  case  was  most  revolutionary.  It  compelled 
the  workers  to  pay  damages,  to  the  extent  of  $115,000, 
to  the  railroad  company  for  losses  sustained  by  the 
company  through  a  strike  of  its  employees,  members 
of  the  defendant  union.  That  decision  struck  terror 
and  consternation  into  the  hearts  of  British  trade 
unionists.  At  last  they  had  to  face  a  mode  of  attack 
almost,  if  not  altogether,  as  dangerous  as  that  of  the 
inj  unction  which  their  transatlantic  brethren  had  so 
long  been  facing. 

Taff  Vale  law  could  not  for  long  be  confined  to 
England.  Ever  on  the  alert,  our  American  capitalists 
decided  to  follow  the  example  set  by  the  English 
railroad  company.  A  suit  was  instituted  against 
members  of  a  lodge  of  the  Machinists'  Union  in  Rut- 
land, Vermont,  and  the  defendants  were  ordered  to  pay 
$2500.  A  writ  was  served  upon  every  other  man  in 
the  lodge,  and  the  property  of  every  one  of  them 
attached.  Since  that  time,  numerous  other  deci- 
sions of  a  like  nature  have  been  rendered  in  various 
parts  of  the  country.  Thus  the  unions  have  been 
assailed  in  a  vital  place,  their  treasuries.  It  is 
manifestly  quite  useless  for  the  members  of  a  union 
to  strike  against  an  employer  for  any  purpose  what- 
ever, if  the  employer  is  to  be  able  to  recover  damages 
from  the  union.  Taff  Vale  judge-made  law  renders 
unionism  hors  de  combat  at  a  stroke. 


THE   CLASS  STRUGGLE  THEORY  159 

IX 

The  immediate  effect  produced  upon  the  minds 
of  the  workers  of  England  by  the  revolutionary 
decision  manifested  itself  in  a  cry  for  independent 
political  action  by  the  unions.  There  is  a  con- 
census of  opinion  that  the  tremendous  increase  in 
the  labor  and  Socialist  vote  at  the  recent  elections 
was  due,  largely,  to  the  attack  made  upon  the  funds 
of  the  unions.  The  aim  of  the  workers  there  is  to 
get  legislation  enacted  for  the  protection  of  the 
funds  of  their  unions.  A  similar  process  is  going 
on  in  this  country.  Colorado  "bull  pens,"  anti- 
democratic, anti-American,  anti-everything-decent 
injunctions,  and  transplanted  Taff  Vale  decisions, 
are  educating  the  workers  to  the  acceptance  of  po- 
litical Socialism.  Underneath  the  thin  veneer  of 
party  differences,  the  worker  sees  the  class  identity 
of  the  great  political  parties,  and  cries  out,  "A 
plague  on  both  your  houses!"  The  Socialist  argu- 
ment comes  to  the  workingman  with  twofold  force; 
he  has  it  in  his  power  to  control  that  government, 
to  make  it  what  he  will;  he  can  put  an  end  to  gov- 
ernment by  inj  unctions,  to  bull  pens,  and  to  the 
sequestration  of  union  funds,  whenever  he  makes 
up  his  mind  to  do  it.  He  can  make  the  government 
what  he  will;  if  he  so  decides,  he  can  own  and  con- 
trol the  government,  and,  through  the  government, 


160  SOCIALISM 

own  and  control  the  essentials  of  life:   be  master  of 
his  own  labor,  his  own  bread,  his  own  life. 

If  we  take  for  granted  that  the  universal  increase 
of  Socialist  sentiment,  and  the  growth  of  political 
Socialism,  presage  this  great  triumph  of  the  working 
class;  that  the  heretofore  despised  and  oppressed 
proletariat  is,  in  a  not  far-off  future,  to  rule  instead 
of  being  ruled,  the  question  arises,  will  the  last  state 
be  better  than  the  first?  Will  society  be  bettered 
by  the  change  of  masters?  To  regard  this  struggle 
of  the  classes  as  one  of  revenge,  of  exploited  masses 
ready  to  overturn  the  social  structure  that  they  may 
i  become  exploiters  instead  of  exploited,  is  to  mis- 
read the  whole  movement.  The  political  and  eco- 
nomic conquest  of  society  by  the  working  class  means 
the  end  of  class  divisions,  once  and  forever.  A  so- 
cial democracy,  a  society  in  which  all  the  means  of 
the  common  life  are  owned  and  controlled  by  the 
people  in  common,  democratically  organized,  pre- 
cludes the  existence  of  class  divisions  in  our  present- 
day  economic  and  political  sense.  Profit,  through 
human  exploitation,  alone  has  made  class  divisions 
possible;  and  the  Socialist  regime  will  abolish  profit. 
\  The  working  class  in  emancipating  itself,  at  the  same 
V  tune  makes  liberty  possible  for  the  whole  race  of 
\  man. 


CHAPTER  VII 

KARL   MARX   AND   THE    ECONOMICS    OF   SOCIALISM 


THE  first  approach  to  a  comprehensive  treatment 
of  the  materialistic  conception  of  history  appeared 
in  1847,  several  months  before  the  publication  of  the 
Manifesto,  in  La  Misere  de  la  Philosophic,1  the  fa- 
mous polemic  with  which  Marx  assailed  Proudhon's 
La  Philosophic  de  la  Misere.  Marx  had  worked  out 
his  theory  at  least  two  years  before,  so  Engels  tells 
us,  and  in  his  writings  of  that  period  there  are  many 
evidences  of  the  fact.  In  La  Misere  de  la  Philo- 
sophic the  theory  is  fundamental  to  the  work,  and 
not  merely  the  subject  of  incidental  allusion.  This 
little  book,  all  too  little  known  in  England  and 
America,  is  therefore  important  from  this  historical 
point  of  view.  In  it,  Marx  for  the  first  time  shows 
his  complete  confidence  in  the  theory.  It  needed 
confidence  little  short  of  sublime  to  challenge  Prou- 
dhon  in  the  audacious  manner  of  this  scintillating 

1  An  English  edition  of  this  work,  translated  by  H.  Quelch,  was 
published  in  1900  with  the  title  The  Poverty  of  Philosophy. 
M  161 


162  SOCIALISM 

critique.  The  torrential  eloquence,  the  scornful  sa- 
tire, and  fierce  invective  of  the  attack  upon  Proudhon, 
have  rather  tended  to  obscure  for  readers  of  a 
later  generation  the  real  merit  of  the  book,  the  im- 
portance of  the  fundamental  idea  that  history  must 
be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  economic  development, 
that  economic  evolution  determines  social  life.  The 
book  is  important  also  for  two  other  reasons.  First, 
it  was  the  author's  first  serious  essay  in  economic 
science  —  in  the  Preface  he  boldly  calls  himself  an 
economist  —  and,  second,  in  it  appears  a  full  and 
generous  recognition  of  that  brilliant  coterie  of 
English  Socialist  writers  of  the  Ricardian  school 
from  whom  Marx  has  been  unjustly,  and  almost 
spitefully,  charged  with  "pillaging"  his  principal 
ideas. 

What  led  Marx  to  launch  out  upon  the  troubled 
sea  of  economic  science,  when  all  his  predilections 
were  for  the  study  of  pure  philosophy,  was  the  fact 
that  his  philosophical  studies  had  led  him  to  a  point 
where  further  progress  was  impossible,  except  by 
way  of  economics.  The  Introduction  to  A  Contri- 
bution to  the  Critique  of  Political  Economy  makes  this 
perfectly  clear.  Having  decided  that  "The  method 
./of  production  in  material  existence  conditions  social, 
xditical,  and  mental  evolution  in  general,"  a  study 
of  economics,  and  especially  an  analysis  of  modern 
industrial  society,  became  inevitable.  During  the 


KARL  MARX  AND  ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM     163 

year  1845,  when  the  theory  of  the  economic  inter- 
pretation of  history  was  absorbing  his  attention, 
Marx  spent  six  weeks  in  England  with  his  friend 
Engels,  and  became  acquainted  with  the  work  of 
the  English  Ricardian  Socialists  referred  to.1  Engels 
had  been  living  in  England  about  three  years  at  this 
time,  and  had  made  an  exhaustive  investigation  of 
industrial  conditions  there,  and  become  intimately 
acquainted  with  the  leaders  of  the  Chartist  move- 
ment. His  fine  library  contained  most  of  the  works 
of  contemporary  writers,  and  it  was  thus  that  Marx 
came  to  know  them. 

Foremost  of  this  school  of  Socialists  which  had 
arisen,  naturally  enough,  in  the  land  where  capi- 
talism flourished  at  its  best,  were  William  Godwin, 
Charles  Hall,  William  Thompson,  John  Gray,  Thomas 
Hodgskin,  and  John  Francis  Bray.  With  the 
exception  of  Hall,  of  whose  privately  printed  book, 
The  Effects  of  Civilisation  on  the  People  of  the  Euro- 
pean States,  1805,  he  seems  not  to  have  known, 
Marx  was  familiar  with  the  writings  of  all  the  fore- 
going, and  his  obligations  to  Thompson,  Hodgskin, 
and  Bray  were  not  slight.  While  the  charge,  made 
by  Dr.  Anton  Menger,2  among  others,  that  Marx 
took  his  theory  of  surplus  value  from  Thompson 

1  Cf.  F.  Engels'  Preface   to  La  Misere  de  la  Philosophic,  English 
translation,  The  Poverty  of  Philosophy,  page  iv. 

2  Menger,  The  Right  to  the  Whole  Produce  of  Labour,  1899. 


164  SOCIALISM 

is  absurd,  and  rests,  as  Bernstein  has  pointed  out,1 
upon  nothing  but  the  fact  that  Thompson  used  the 
words  "surplus  value"  frequently,  but  not  in  the 
same  sense  that  Marx  uses  them,  we  need  not  at- 
tempt to  dispute  the  fact  that  Marx  gleaned  much 
of  value  from  Thompson  and  the  other  two  writers 
named.  While  criticising  them,  and  pointing  out 
then1  shortcomings,  Marx  himself  frequently  pays 
tributes  of  respect  to  each  of  them.  His  indebted- 
ness to  either  of  them,  or  to  all  of  them,  consists  sim- 
ply in  the  fact  that  he  recognized  the  germ  of  truth  in 
their  writings,  and  saw  what  they  failed  to  perceive. 

Godwin's  most  important  work,  An  Inquiry 
Concerning  Political  Justice,  appeared  in  1793, 
and  contains  the  germ  of  much  that  is  called  Marx- 
ian Socialism.  In  it  may  be  found  the  broad  lines 
of  the  thought  which  marks  much  of  our  present-day 
Socialist  teaching,  especially  the  criticism  of  capi- 
talist society.  Marx,  however,  does  not  appear 
to  have  been  directly  influenced  by  it.  That  he  was 
influenced  by  it  indirectly,  through  William  Thomp- 
son, Godwin's  most  illustrious  disciple,  is,  however, 
quite  certain.  Thompson  wrote  several  works  of 
a  Socialist  character,  of  which  An  Inquiry  into  the 
Principles  of  the  Distribution  of  Wealth  most  Con- 
ducive to  Human  Happiness,  applied  to  the  newly 

1  Edward  Bernstein,  Ferdinand  Lassalle  as  a  Social  Reformer, 
page  ix. 


KARL  MARX  AND   ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM     165 

proposed  System  of  Voluntary  Equality  of  Wealth, 
1824,  and  Labour  Rewarded.  The  Claims  of  Labour 
and  Capital  Conciliated,  or  how  to  secure  to  Labour 
the  Whole  Products  of  its  Exertions,  1827,  are  the 
most  important  and  best  known.  Thompson  must 
be  regarded  as  one  of  the  greatest  precursors  of 
Marx  in  the  development  of  modern  Socialist  theory. 
A  Ricardian  of  the  Ricardians,  he  states  the  law  of 
wages  in  language  that  is  almost  as  emphatic  as 
Lassalle's  famous  Ehernes  Lohngesetz.  Accepting 
the  view  of  Ricardo,  —  and  indeed,  of  Adam  Smith 
and  other  English  economists  —  that  labor  is  the 
sole  source  of  exchange  value,1  he  shows  the  exploi- 
tation of  the  laborer,  and  uses  the  term  "  surplus 
value,"  not,  however,  in  the  sense  hi  which  Marx 
uses  it. 

John  Gray's  A  Lecture  on  Human  Happiness, 
published  hi  1825,  has  been  described  by  Professor 
Foxwell2  as  being  "certainly  one  of  the  most  re- 
markable of  Socialist  writings,"  and  the  summary  of 
the  rare  little  work  which  he  gives  amply  justifies 
the  description.  Gray  published  other  works  of 
note,  two  of  which,  The  Social  System,  a  Treatise 

1  It  should  be  pointed  out  here,  I  think,  that  Ricardo  hedged  this 
doctrine  about  with  important  qualifications  till  it  no  longer  remained 
the   simple   proposition   stated   above.     See    Dr.    A.    C.    Whitaker's 
History  and    Criticism  of  the  Labour  Theory  of   Value    in  English 
Political  Economy,  page  57,  for  a  suggestive  treatment  of  this  point. 

2  Introduction   to  Monger's   The  Right  to  the  Whole  Produce  oj 
Labour. 


166  SOCIALISM 

on  the  Principle  of  Exchange,  1831,  and  Lectures  on 
the  Nature  and  Use  of  Money,  1848,  Marx  subjects 
to  a  rigorous  criticism  in  A  Contribution  to  the  Cri- 
tique of  Political  Economy.  Thomas  Hodgskin's 
best-known  works  are  Labour  Defended  against  the 
Claims  of  Capital,  1825,  and  The  Natural  and  Arti- 
ficial Right  of  Property  Contrasted,  1832.  The  former, 
which  Marx  calls  "an  admirable  work,"  is  only  a 
small  tract  of  thirty-four  pages,  but  its  influence  in 
England  and  in  America  was  very  great.  Hodgskin 
was  a  man  of  great  culture  and  erudition,  with  a  genius 
for  popular  writing  upon  difficult  topics.  It  is  in- 
teresting to  know  that  in  a  letter  to  his  friend,  Fran- 
cis Place,  he  sketched  a  book  which  he  proposed 
writing,  "curiously  like  Marx's  Capital"  according 
to  Place's  biographer,  Mr.  Wallas,1  and  which  the 
conservative  old  reformer  dissuaded  him  from 
writing.  John  Francis  Bray  was  a  journeyman 
printer  about  whom  very  little  is  known.  His 
Labour's  Wrongs  and  Labour's  Remedy  published 
in  Leeds  in  1839,  Marx  calls  a  "remarkable  work," 
and  in  his  attack  upon  Proudhon  he  quotes  from  it 
extensively  to  show  that  Bray  had  anticipated  the 
French  writer's  theories.2 

1  The  Life  of  Francis  Place,  by  Graham  Wallas,  M.A.,   London, 
1898,  page  268. 

2  For  this  brief  sketch  of  the  works  of  these  writers  I  have  drawn 
freely  upon  Dr.  Anton  Menger's  The  Right  to  the  Whole  Produce  of 
Labour,  and  Professor  Foxwell's  Introduction  thereto. 


KAKL  MARX  AND   ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM     167 

The  justification  for  this  lengthy  digression  from 
the  main  theme  of  the  present  chapter  lies  in  the 
fact  that  many  critics  have  sought  to  fasten  the 
charge  of  dishonesty  upon  Marx,  and  daimed  that 
the  ideas  with  which  his  name  is  associated  were 
taken  by  him,  without  acknowledgment,  from  these 
English  Ricardian  Socialists.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
no  economist  of  note  ever  quoted  his  authorities 
with  more  generous  frankness  than  Marx,  and  it 
is  exceedingly  doubtful  whether  the  names  of  the 
precursors  whose  ideas  he  is  accused  of  stealing 
would  be  even  known  to  his  critics  but  for  his  frank 
recognition  of  them.  No  candid  reader  of  Marx 
can  fail  to  notice  that  he  is  most  careful  to  show 
how  nearly  these  writers  approached  the  truth  as  he 
conceived  it. 


II 


When  the  February  revolution  of  1848  broke  out, 
Marx  was  in  Brussels.  The  authorities  there  com- 
pelling him  to  leave  Belgian  soil,  he  returned  to 
France,  but  not  for  a  long  stay.  The  revolutionary 
struggle  in  Germany  stirred  his  blood,  and  with 
Engels,  Wilhelm  Wolf,1  and  Ferdinand  Freiligrath, 
the  poet  of  the  movement,  he  started  the  New 

1  An  intimate  friend,  to  whom  Marx  dedicated  the  first  volume  of 
Capital. 


168  SOCIALISM 

Rhenish  Gazette.  Unlike  the  first  Rhenish  Gazette,  the 
new  journal  was  absolutely  free.  Twice  Marx  was 
summoned  to  appear  at  the  Cologne  Assizes,  upon 
charges  of  inciting  the  people  to  rebellion,  and  each 
time  he  defended  himself  with  superb  skill  and 
audacity  and  was  acquitted.  But  in  June,  1849, 
the  authorities  suppressed  the  paper,  because  of  the 
support  it  gave  to  the  risings  in  Dresden  and  the 
Rhine  Province.  Marx  was  expelled  from  Prussia 
and  once  more  sought  refuge  in  Paris,  which  he  was 
allowed  to  enjoy  only  for  a  very  brief  time.  For- 
bidden by  the  French  government  to  stay  in  Paris, 
or  any  other  part  of  France  except  Bretagne,  which, 
says  Liebknecht,  was  considered  fireproof,  Marx 
turned  to  London,  the  mecca  of  all  political  exiles, 
arriving  there  toward  the  end  of  June,  1849. 

His  removal  to  London  was  one  of  the  crucial 
events  of  the  life  of  Marx.  It  became  possible  for 
him,  in  the  classic  land  of  capitalism,  to  pursue  his 
economic  studies  in  a  way  that  was  not  possible 
anywhere  else  in  the  world.  As  Liebknecht  says: 
"Here  hi  London,  the  metropolis  (mother  city) 
and  the  center  of  the  world,  and  of  the  world  of 
trade  —  the  watch  tower  of  the  world  whence  the 
trade  of  the  world  and  the  political  and  economical 
bustle  of  the  world  may  be  observed,  in  a  way  im- 
possible in  any  other  part  of  the  globe  —  here, 
Marx  found  what  he  sought  and  needed,  the  bricks 


KARL  MARX  AND   ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM     169 

and  mortar  for  his  work.    Capital  could  be  created 
in  London  only."  l 

Already  much  more  familiar  with  English  political 
economy  than  most  English  writers,  and  with  the 
fine  library  of  the  British  Museum  at  his  command, 
Marx  felt  that  the  time  had  at  last  arrived  when  he 
could  devote  himself  to  his  long-cherished  plan  of 
writing  a  great  treatise  upon  political  economy 
upon  which  the  theoretical  structure  of  the  Social- 
ist movement  could  be  safely  and  securely  based. 
With  this  object  hi  view,  he  resumed  his  economic 
studies  in  1850,  soon  after  his  arrival  in  London. 
The  work  proceeded  slowly,  however,  principally 
owing  to  the  long  and  bitter  struggle  with  poverty 
which  encompassed  Marx  and  his  gentle  wife.  For 
years  they  suffered  all  the  miseries  of  acute  poverty, 
and  even  afterward,  when  the  worst  was  past,  the 
principal  source  of  income,  almost  the  only  source  in 
fact,  was  the  five  dollars  a  week  received  from  the 
New  York  Tribune,  for  which  Marx  acted  as  special 
correspondent,  and  to  which  he  contributed  some  of 
his  finest  work.2  There  are  few  pictures  more 
pathetic,  albeit  also  heroic,  than  that  which  we 


1  Karl   Marx:    Biographical    Memoirs,  by  Wilhelm  Liebknecht, 
translated  by  E.  Untermann,  1901,  page  32. 

2  Much  of  this  work  has    been  collated  and    edited  by  Marx's 
daughter,  the  late  Mrs.  Eleanor  Marx  Aveling,  and  her  husband,  Dr. 
Edward  Aveling,  and  published  in  two  volumes,  The  Eastern  Ques- 
tion and  Revolution  and  Counter-Revolution. 


170  SOCIALISM 

have  of  the  great  thinker  and  his  devoted  wife  strug- 
gling against  poverty  during  the  first  few  years  of 
their  stay  in  London.  Often  the  little  family  suf- 
fered the  pangs  of  hunger,  and  Marx  and  his  fellow- 
exiles  used  to  resort  to  the  reading  room  of  the  Brit- 
ish Museum,  weak  from  lack  of  food  very  often, 
but  grateful  for  the  warmth  of  that  hospitable  spot. 
The  family  lived  in  two  small  rooms  in  a  cheap 
lodging  house  on  Dean  Street,  for  some  years,  the 
front  room  serving  as  reception  room  and  study, 
and  the  back  room  serving  for  everything  else.  In 
a  diary  note,  Mrs.  Marx  has  herself  left  us  an  im- 
pressive picture  of  the  suffering  of  those  early 
years  in  London.  Early  in  1852,  death  entered 
the  little  household  for  the  first  time,  taking  away 
a  little  daughter.  Only  a  few  weeks  later  an- 
other little  daughter  died,  and  Mrs.  Marx  wrote 
concerning  this  event:  — 

"  On  Easter  of  the  same  year  —  1852  —  our  poor 
little  Francisca  died  of  severe  bronchitis.  Three 
days  the  poor  child  was  struggling  with  death.  It 
suffered  so  much.  Its  little  lifeless  body  rested  in 
the  small  back  room;  we  all  moved  together  into 
the  front  room,  and  when  night  approached,  we 
made  our  beds  on  the  floor.  There  the  three  living 
children  were  lying  at  our  side,  and  we  cried  about 
the  little  angel,  who  rested  cold  and  lifeless  near  us. 
The  death  of  the  dear  child  fell  into  the  time  of  the 


KARL  MARX  AND   ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM     171 

most  bitter  poverty  .  .  .  (the  money  for  the  burial 
of  the  child  was  missing). — I  went  to  a  French 
refugee  living  in  the  vicinity,  who  had  visited  us 
shortly  before. 

"He  at  once  gave  me  two  pounds  sterling,  with 
the  friendliest  sympathy.  With  this  money,  the 
little  coffin  was  purchased  in  which  my  poor  child 
now  slumbers  peacefully.  It  had  no  cradle  when  it 
entered  the  world,  and  the  last  little  abode  also  was 
for  a  long  time  denied  it.  What  did  we  suffer,  when 
it  was  carried  away  to  its  last  place  of  rest !"  * 

The  poverty,  of  which  we  have  here  such  a  graphic 
view,  lasted  for  several  years  beyond  the  publication 
of  the  Critique,  on  to  the  publication  of  the  first 
volume  of  Capital.  When  this  struggle  is  remem- 
bered and  understood,  it  becomes  easier  to  appre- 
ciate the  life  work  of  the  great  Socialist  thinker. 
As  this  is  the  last  place  in  which  the  personality  of 
Marx,  or  his  personal  affairs,  will  be  discussed  at 
any  length  in  the  present  work,  a  further  word  con- 
cerning his  family  life  may  not  be  out  of  place.  Those 
persons  who  regard  Socialism  as  being  antagonistic 
to  the  marriage  relation,  and  fear  it  in  consequence, 
will  find  no  suggestion  of  support  for  that  view  in 
the  life  of  Marx.  The  love  of  Marx  and  his  wife 
for  one  another  was  beautiful  and  idylic;  a  true 
account  of  their  love  and  devotion  would  rank  with 

1  Quoted  by  Liebknecht,  Memoirs,  page  177. 


172  SOCIALISM 

the  most  beautiful  love  stories  in  literature.  Their 
friends  understood  that,  too,  and  there  is  a  world 
of  significance  in  the  one  brief  sentence  spoken  by 
Engels,  when  told  of  the  death  of  his  friend's  wife, 
who  was  likewise  his  own  dear  friend;  "Mohr 
[Negro,  a  nickname  given  to  Marx  by  his  friends] 
is  dead  too,"  he  said  simply.  It  was  indeed  true. 
Though  he  lingered  on  for  about  three  months  after 
her  death,  the  life  of  Marx  really  ended  when  the 
playmate  of  his  boyhood,  and  the  lover  and  com- 
panion of  his  later  years,  died  with  the  name  of  her 
dear  "Karl"  upon  her  lips. 


Ill 


The  studious  years  spent  in  the  reading  room  of 
the  British  Museum  completed  the  anglicization  of 
Marx.  Capital  is  essentially  an  English  work,  the 
fact  of  its  being  written  hi  German,  by  a  German 
writer,  being  merely  incidental.  No  more  distinc- 
tively English  treatise  on  political  economy  was  ever 
written,  not  even  the  Wealth  of  Nations.  Even  the 
method  and  style  of  the  book  are,  contrary  to  gen- 
eral opinion,  much  more  distinctly  English  than 
German.  Capital  was  the  child  of  English  indus- 
trial conditions  and  English  thought,  born  by  chance 
upon  German  soil. 

Toward   the   middle   of   the   nineteenth   century, 


KARL  MARX  AND  ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM     173 

English  economic  thought  was  entirely  dominated 
by  the  ideas  and  method  of  Ricardo,  who  has  been 
described  by  Senior,  not  without  justice,  as  "the 
most  incorrect  writer  who  ever  attained  philosoph- 
ical eminence." 1  So  far  as  looseness  hi  the  use 
of  terms  can  justify  such  a  sweeping  criticism,  it 
is  justified  by  Ricardo's  failing  hi  this  respect.  That 
he  should  have  attained  the  eminence  he  did,  domi- 
nating English  economic  thought  for  many  years, 
in  spite  of  the  confusion  which  his  loose  and  uncer- 
tain use  of  words  occasioned,  is  not  less  a  tribute  to 
Ricardo's  genius  than  evidence  of  the  poverty  of 
political  economy  in  England  at  that  tune.  In 
view  of  the  constant  and  tiresome  reiteration  of  the 
charge  that  Marx  pillaged  his  labor-value  theory 
from  Thompson,  Hodgskin,  Bray,  or  some  other 
more  or  less  obscure  writer  of  the  Ricardian  Social- 
ist school,  it  is  well  to  remember  that  there  is  noth- 
ing to  be  found  hi  the  works  of  any  of  these  writers 
connected  with  the  theory  of  value  which  is  not  to 
be  found  in  the  earlier  work  of  Ricardo  himself. 
In  like  manner,  the  theory  can  be  traced  back  from 
Ricardo  to  the  master  he  honored,  Adam  Smith. 
Furthermore,  almost  a  century  before  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Wealth  of  Nations,  Sir  William  Petty 
had  anticipated  the  so-called  Ricardian  labor-value 
theory  of  Smith  and  his  followers. 

1  Political  Economy,  page  115. 


174  SOCIALISM 

Petty,  rather  than  Smith,  is  entitled  to  be  regarded 
as  the  founder  of  the  classical  school  of  political 
economy,  and  Cossa  justly  calls  him,  "one  of  the 
most  illustrious  forerunners  of  the  science  of  sta- 
tistical research."  l  He  may  indeed  fairly  be  called 
the  father  of  statistical  science,  and  was  the  first 
to  apply  statistics,  or  "political  arithmetick,"  as 
he  called  it,  to  the  elucidation  of  political  economy. 
He  boasts  that  "instead  of  using  only  comparative 
and  superlative  Words,  and  intellectual  Arguments," 
his  method  is  to  speak  "in  Terms  of  Number,  Weight, 
or  Measure;  to  use  only  Arguments  of  Sense;  and 
to  consider  only  such  Causes,  as  have  visible  Foun- 
dations in  Nature;  leaving  those  that  depend  upon 
the  mutable  Minds,  Opinions,  Appetites,  and  Pas- 
sions of  particular  Men,  to  the  Consideration  of 
others."  2  The  celebrated  saying  of  this  sagacious 
thinker  that,  "labor  is  the  father  and  active  prin- 
ciple of  wealth;  lands  are  the  mother,"  is  quite 
Ricardian.  Petty  divided  the  population  into  two 
classes,  the  productive  and  non-productive,  and 
insisted  that  the  value  of  all  things  depends  upon 
the  labor  it  costs  to  produce  or  obtain  them.  These 
are  the  ideas  Marx  is  accused  of  taking,  with- 
out acknowledgment,  from  comparatively  obscure 

1  Luigi  Cossa,  Guide  to   the  Study  of  Political  Economy,  English 
translation,  1880. 

2  The  Economic  Writings  of  Sir  WiUiam  Petty,  edited  by  Charles 
Henry  Hull,  Vol.  I,  page  244. 


KARL  MARX  AND   ECONOMICS   OF  SOCIALISM     175 

followers  of  Ricardo,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he 
gives  abundant  credit  to  the  earlier  writer.  It 
has  been  asked  with  ample  justification  whether 
these  critics  of  Marx  have  ever  read  the  works  of 
Marx  or  his  predecessors. 

Adam  Smith,  who  accepted  the  foregoing  prin- 
ciples laid  down  by  Petty,  followed  his  example  of 
basing  his  opinions  upon  observed  facts  instead  of 
abstractions.  It  is  not  the  least  of  Smith's  merits 
that,  despite  his  many  digressions,  looseness  of 
phraseology,  and  other  admitted  defects,  his  love 
for  the  concrete  kept  his  feet  upon  the  solid  ground 
of  fact.  With  his  successors,  notably  Ricardo  and 
J.  S.  Mill,  it  was  far  otherwise.  They  made  political 
economy  an  isolated  study  of  abstract  doctrines. 
Instead  of  a  study  of  the  meaning  and  relation  of 
facts,  it  became  a  cult  of  abstractions,  and  the  aim 
of  its  teachers  seemed  to  be  to  render  the  science 
as  little  scientific,  and  as  dull,  as  possible.  They 
set  up  an  abstraction,  an  "economic  man/'  and 
created  for  it  a  world  of  economic  abstractions. 
It  is  impossible  to  read  either  Ricardo  or  John  Stuart 
Mill,  but  especially  the  latter,  without  feeling  the 
artificiality  of  the  superstructures  they  created, 
and  the  justice  of  Carlyle's  description  of  such 
political  economy  as  the  "dismal  science."  With 
a  realism  greater  even  than  Adam  Smith's,  and  a 
more  logical  method  than  John  Stuart  Mill's,  Marx 


176  SOCIALISM 

restored  the  science  of  political  economy  to  its  old 
fact  foundations. 

IV 

The  superior  insight  of  Marx  is  shown  in  the  very 
first  sentence  of  his  great  work.  The  careful  reader 
at  once  perceives  that  the  first  paragraph  of  the  book 
strikes  a  keynote  which  distinguishes  it  from  all 
other  economic  works.  Marx  was  a  great  master 
of  the  art  of  luminous  and  exact  definition  and 
nowhere  is  this  more  strikingly  shown  than  in  this 
opening  sentence  of  Capital:  "The  wealth  of  those 
societies  in  which  the  capitalist  mode  of  production 
prevails  presents  itself  as  an  immense  accumula- 
tion of  commodities,  its  unit  being  a  single  commod- 
ity." *  In  this  simple,  lucid  sentence,  the  theory 
of  social  evolution  is  clearly  implied.  The  author 
repudiates,  by  implication,  the  idea  that  it  is  possible 
to  lay  down  universal  or  eternal  laws,  and  limits 
himself  to  the  exploration  of  the  phenomena  ap- 
pearing in  a  certain  stage  of  historical  develop- 
ment. We  are  not  to  have  another  abstract  eco- 
nomic man  with  a  world  of  abstractions  all  his  own  ; 
lone,  shipwrecked  mariners  upon  barren  islands, 
imaginary  communities  nicely  adapted  for  demon- 
stration purposes  in  college  class  rooms,  and  all 
the  other  stage  properties  of  the  political  econo- 

1  The  italics  are  mine.  —  J.  S. 


KAEL  MARX  AND   ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM     177 

mists,  are  to  be  entirely  discarded.  Our  author 
does  not  propose  to  give  us  a  code  of  principles  by 
which  we  shall  be  able  to  understand  and  explain 
the  phenomena  of  human  society  at  all  tunes  and  in 
all  places  —  the  Israel  of  the  Mosaic  Age,  the  no- 
madic lif e  of  Arab  tribes,  Europe  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
and  England  in  the  nineteenth  century. 

In  effect,  the  passage  under  consideration  says: 
"Political  economy  is  the  study  of  the  principles 
and  laws  governing  the  production  and  distribution 
of  wealth.  Because  of  the  fact  that  hi  the  progress 
of  society  different  systems  of  wealth  production 
and  exchange,  and  different  concepts  of  wealth, 
prevail  at  different  times,  and  in  various  places  at 
the  same  tune,  we  cannot  apply  any  laws,  however 
carefully  formulated,  to  all  times  and  to  all  places. 
We  must  choose  for  study  and  examination  a  cer- 
tain form  of  production,  representing  a  particular 
stage  of  historical  development,  and  be  careful  not 
to  apply  any  of  its  laws  to  other  forms  of  production^ 
representing  other  stages  of  development.  We 
might  have  chosen  to  investigate  the  laws  which 
governed  the  production  of  wealth  in  the  ancient 
Babylonian  Empire,  or  in  Mediaeval  Europe,  had 
we  so  desired,  but  we  have  chosen  instead  the  period 
hi  which  we  live." 

This  that  we  call  the  capitalist  epoch  has  grown 
out  of  the  geographical  discoveries  and  the  mechan- 


178  SOCIALISM 

ical  inventions  of  the  past  three  hundred  years, 
especially  the  mechanical  discoveries  of  the  seven- 
teenth and  eighteenth  centuries.  Its  chief  char- 
acteristic, from  an  economic  point  of  view,  is  that 
of  production  for  sale  instead  of  direct  use  as  in  ear- 
lier stages  of  social  development.  Of  course,  barter 
and  sale  are  much  older  than  this  epoch  which  we 
are  discussing.  In  all  ages  men  have  exchanged 
their  surplus  products  for  other  things  more  desirable 
to  them,  either  directly  by  barter  or  through  some 
medium  of  exchange.  In  the  very  nature  of  things, 
however,  such  exchange  as  this  must  have  been 
incidental  to  the  life  of  the  people  engaging  in  it, 
and  not  its  principal  ami.  Under  such  conditions 
of  society  wealth  consists  in  the  possession  of  useful 
things.  The  naked  savage,  so  long  as  he  possessed 
plenty  of  weapons,  and  could  get  an  abundance  of 
fish  or  game,  was,  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  society 
in  which  he  lived,  a  wealthy  man.  In  other  words, 
the  wealth  of  pre-capitalist  society  consisted  in  the 
possession  of  use-values,  and  not  of  exchange  values. 
Robinson  Crusoe,  for  whom  the  very  possibility 
of  exchange  did  not  exist,  was,  from  this  pre-capi- 
talistic  point  of  view,  a  very  wealthy  man. 

In  our  present  society,  production  is  carried  on 
primarily  for  exchange,  for  sale.  The  first  and  essen- 
tial characteristic  feature  of  wealth  in  this  stage  of 
social  development  is  that  it  takes  the  form  of  accu- 


KARL  MARX  AND  ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM      179 

mulated  exchange-values,  or  commodities.  Men  are 
accounted  rich  or  poor  according  to  the  exchange- 
values  they  can  command,  and  not  according  to  the 
use-values  they  can  command.  To  use  a  favorite 
example,  the  man  who  owns  a  ton  of  potatoes  is 
far  richer  in  simple  use-values  than  the  man  whose 
only  possession  is  a  sack  of  diamonds,  but,  because 
in  present  society  a  sack  of  diamonds  will  exchange 
for  an  almost  infinite  quantity  of  potatoes,  the 
owner  of  the  diamonds  is  much  wealthier  than  the 
owner  of  the  potatoes.  The  criterion  of  wealth  in 
capitalist  society  is  exchangeable  value  as  opposed 
to  use-value,  the  criterion  of  wealth  in  primitive 
society.  The  unit  of  wealth  is  therefore  a  commod- 
ity, and  we  must  begin  our  investigation  with  it. 
If  we  can  analyze  the  nature  of  a  commodity  so  that 
we  can  understand  how  and  why  it  is  produced,  and 
how  and  why  it  is  exchanged,  we  shall  be  able  to 
understand  the  principle  governing  the  production 
and  exchange  of  wealth  in  this  and  every  other 
society  where  similar  conditions  prevail,  where,  that 
is  to  say,  the  unit  of  wealth  is  a  commodity. 


It  has  become  fashionable  in  recent  years  to  sneer 
at  the  term  "scientific"  which  has  been  commonly 
applied  to  Marxian  Socialism.  Even  some  of  the 


180  SOCIALISM 

friendliest  critics  of  Socialism  have  contended  that 
the  use  of  the  term  is  pretentious,  bombastic,  and 
altogether  unjustified.  From  a  certain  point  of 
view,  this  appears  to  be  an  exceedingly  unimportant 
matter,  and  the  vigor  with  which  Socialists  defend 
their  use  of  the  term  seems  exceedingly  foolish, 
and  accountable  for  only  as  a  result  of  enthusiastic 
fetish  worship  —  the  fetish,  of  course,  being  Marx. 
Such  a  view  is  exceedingly  crude  and  superficial. 
It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  Socialism  represented 
by  Marx  and  the  modern  Socialist  movement  is 
radically  different  from  the  earlier  Socialism  with 
which  the  names  of  Fourier,  Saint-Simon,  Cabet, 
Owen,  and  a  host  of  other  builders  of  "cloud  palaces 
for  an  ideal  humanity,"  are  associated.  The  need 
of  some  word  to  distinguish  between  the  two  is  ob- 
vious, and  the  only  question  remaining  is  whether 
or  not  the  word  "scientific"  is  the  most  suitable 
and  accurate  one  to  make  that  distinction  clear; 
whether  the  words  "scientific"  and  " Utopian" 
express  with  reasonable  accuracy  the  nature  of  the 
difference.  Here  the  followers  and  champions  of 
Marx  feel  that  they  have  taken  an  impregnable 
position.  The  method  of  Marx  is  scientific.  From 
the  first  sentence  of  his  great  work  to  the  last,  the 
method  pursued  is  that  of  a  painstaking  scientist. 
It  would  be  just  as  reasonable  to  complain  of  the  use 
of  the  term  "scientific"  in  connection  with  the  work 


KARL  MARX  AND   ECONOMICS   OF   SOCIALISM     181 

of  Darwin  and  his  followers,  to  distinguish  it  from 
the  guesswork  of  Anaximander,  as  to  cavil  at  the 
distinction  made  between  the  Socialism  of  Marx 
and  his  followers,  and  that  of  visionaries  like  Owen 
and  Saint-Simon. 

If  to  recognize  a  law  of  causation,  to  put  exact 
knowledge  of  facts  above  tradition  or  sentiment,  to 
gather  facts  patiently  until  sufficient  have  been 
gathered  together  to  make  possible  the  formulation 
of  generalizations  and  laws  which  enable  us  to  fore- 
tell with  tolerable  certainty  what  the  outcome  of 
certain  conditions  will  be  —  as  Marx  foretold  the 
culmination  of  competition  in  monoply  —  consti- 
tutes scientific  method,  then  Karl  Marx  was  a  scien- 
tist and  modern  Socialism  is  aptly  named  Scientific 
Socialism. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

OUTLINES  OF  THE   ECONOMICS   OF  SOCIALISM 

I 

THE  geist  of  social  and  political  evolution  is  eco- 
nomic, according  to  the  Socialist  philosophy.  This 
view  of  the  importance  of  man's  economic  relations 
involves  a  very  radical  change  in  the  methods  and 
terminology  of  political  economy.  The  philosoph- 
ical view  of  social  and  political  evolution  as  a 
world-process,  through  revolutions  formed  in  the 
matrices  of  economic  conditions,  at  once  limits  and 
expands  the  scope  of  political  economy.  It  destroys 
on  the  one  hand  the  idea  of  the  eternality  of  eco- 
nomic laws  and  limits  them  to  particular  epochs.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  enhances  the  importance  of  the 
science  of  political  economy  as  a  study  of  the  motive 
force  of  social  evolution.  With  Marx  and  his  fol- 
lowers, political  economy  is  more  than  an  analysis 
of  the  production  and  distribution  of  wealth;  it 
is  a  study  of  the  principal  determinant  factor  in  the 
social  and  political  progress  of  society,  consciously 
recognized  as  such. 

182 


OUTLINES  OF  ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM         183 

The  sociological  viewpoint  appears  throughout 
the  whole  structure  of  Marxian  economic  thought. 
It  appears,  for  instance,  in  the  definition  of  a  com- 
modity as  the  unit  of  wealth  in  those  Societies  in 
which  the  capitalist  mode  of  production  prevails.1 
Likewise  wealth  and  capital  connote  special  social 
relations  or  categories.  Wealth,  which  in  certain 
simpler  forms  of  social  organization  consists  in  the 
ownership  of  use-values,  under  the  capitalist  sys- 
tem consists  in  the  ownership  of  exchange-values. 
Capital  is  not  a  thing,  but  a  social  relation  between 
persons  established  through  the  medium  of  things. 
Robinson  Crusoe's  spade,  the  Indian's  bow  and 
arrow,  and  all  similar  illustrations  given  by  the  "or- 
thodox" economists,  do  not  constitute  capital  any 
more  than  an  infant's  spoon  is  capital.  They  do 
not  serve  as  the  medium  of  the  social  relation  which 
characterizes  the  capitalist  system  of  production. 
The  essential  feature  of  capitalist  society  is  the 
production  of  wealth  in  the  commodity  form;  that 
is  to  say,  in  the  form  of  objects  that,  instead  of  being 
consumed  by  the  producer,  are  destined  to  be  ex- 
changed  or  sold  at  a  profit.- Capital,  therefore,  i 
wealth  set  apart  for  the  production  of  oilier  wealth^ 
with  a  view  to  its  exchange  at  a  profit^  A  house  r 
may  consist  of  certain  definite  quantities  of  bricks, 
timber,  lime,  iron,  and  other  substances,  but  similar 

1  Capital,  English  edition,  page  1. 


184  SOCIALISM 

quantities  of  these  substances  piled  up  without  plan 
will  not  constitute  a  house.  Bricks,  timber,  lime, 
and  iron  become  a  house  only  in  certain  circum- 
stances, when  they  bear  a  given  ordered  relation 
to  each  other.  "A  negro  is  a  negro;  it  is  only  under 
certain  conditions  that  he  becomes  a  slave.  A  cer- 
tain machine,  for  example,  is  a  machine  for  spinning 
cotton;  it  is  only  under  certain  defined  conditions 
that  it  becomes  capital.  Apart  from  these  condi- 
tions, it  is  no  more  capital  than  gold  per  se  is  money ; 
capital  is  a  social  relation  of  production."  1 

This  sociological  principle  pervades  the  whole  of 
Socialist  economics.  It  appears  in  every  economic 
definition,  and  the  terminology  of  the  orthodox 
political  economists  is  thereby  often  given  a  radi- 
cally different  meaning  from  that  originally  given 
to  it  and  commonly  understood.  The  student  of 
Socialism  who  fails  to  appreciate  this  fact  will  most 
frequently  land  in  a  morass  of  confusion  and  dif- 
ficulty; but  the  careful  student  who  fully  under- 
stands it  will  find  it  of  immense  assistance. 

«s 

II 

We  must  begin  our  analysis  of  capitalist  society 
with  an  analysis  of  a  commodity.  "A  commodity 

is,"  says  Marx,  "in  the  first  place,  an  object  outside 

t 

1  The  People's  Marx,  by  Gabriel  Deville,  page  288. 


OUTLINES  OF  ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM         185 

us,  a  thing  that  by  its  properties  satisfies  human 
wants  of  some  sort  or  another.  The  nature  of  such 
wants,  whether,  for  instance,  they  spring  from  the 
stomach  or  from  fancy,  makes  no  difference.  Neither 
are  we  here  concerned  to  know  how  the  object  satis- 
fies these  wants,  whether  directly  as  means  of  sub- 
sistence, or  indirectly  as  means  of  production." 1 
But  a  commodity  must  be  something  more  than  an 
object  satisfying  human  wants.  The  manna  upon 
which  the  pilgrim  exiles  of  the  Bible  story  were  fed, 
for  instance,  was  not  a  commodity,  though  it  ful- 
filled the  conditions  of  this  first  part  of  our  defini- 
tion. In  addition,  then,  to  use-value,  a  commodity 
must  possess  exchange-value.  In  other  words,  it 
must  possess  a  social  use-value,  a  use-value  to  others, 
and  not  merely  to  the  producer. 

Use-values  may,  and  often  do,  exist  without  eco- 
nomic value,  value,  that  is  to  say,  in  exchange.  Air, 
for  instance,  is  absolutely  indispensable  to  life,  yet 
it  is  not  —  except  in  special,  abnormal  conditions  — 
subject  to  sale  or  exchange.  With  a  use-value  that 
is  beyond  computation,  it  has  no  exchange-value. 
Similarly,  water  is  ordinarily  plentiful,  and  has  no 
economic  value;  it  is  not  a  commodity.  A  seeming 
contradiction  exists  in  the  case  of  the  water  supply 
of  cities  where  water  for  domestic  use  is  commercially 
supplied,  but  a  moment's  reflection  will  show  that  it 

1  Capital,  English  edition,  pages  1-2. 


186  SOCIALISM 

is  not  the  water,  but  the  social  service  of  bringing  it 
to  a  desired  location  for  the  consumer's  convenience, 
that  represents  economic  value.  Under  ordinary  cir- 
cumstances, water,  like  light,  is  plentiful;  its  utility 
to  man  is  not  due  to  man's  labor,  and  it  has,  there- 
fore, no  economic  value.  But  in  exceptional  cir- 
cumstances, in  the  arid  desert,  for  instance,  or  in  a 
besieged  fortress,  a  millionaire  might  be  willing  to 
give  all  his  wealth  for  a  little  water,  thus  making  the 
value  of  what  is  ordinarily  valueless  almost  infinite. 
Use-value  may  exist  as  the  result  of  human  labor,  but 
unless  that  use-value  is  social,  if  the  object  produced 
is  of  no  use  to  any  person  other  than  the  producer,  it 
will  have  no  value  in  the  economic  sense.1 

A  commodity  must  therefore  possess  two  funda- 
mental qualities.  It  must  have  a  use-value,  must 
satisfy  some  human  want  or  desire;  it  must  also 
have  an  exchange-value  arising  from  the  fact  that  the 
use-value  contained  in  it  is  social  in  its  nature  and 
exchangeable  for  other  exchange-values.  With  the 
'wealth  thus  defined,  the  subsequent  study  of 
economics  is  immensely  simplified. 

The  trade  of  capitalist  society  is  the  exchange  of 
commodities  against  each  other  through  the  medium 
of  money.  Commodities  utterly  unlike  each  other 

1  Professor  J.  S.  Nicholson,  a  rather  pretentious  critic  of  Marx, 
has  called  sunshine  a  commodity  because  of  its  utility,  Elements  of 
Political  Economy,  page  24.  Upon  the  same  ground,  the  song  of  the 
skylark  and  the  sound  of  ocean  waves  might  be  called  commodities. 


OUTLINES   OF  ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM         187 

in  all  apparent  physical  properties,  such  as  size,  shape, 
color,  weight,  substance,  use,  and  so  on,  are  found  to 
exchange  equally,  to  have  equal  value.  The  question 
immediately  arises:  What  is  it  that  determines  the 
relative  value  of  commodities  so  exchanged  ?  A  dress 
suit  and  a  kitchen  range,  for  example,  are  very  dif- 
ferent commodities  possessing  no  outward  semblance 
to  each  other,  yet  they  may,  and  actually  do,  exchange 
upon  an  equality  in  the  market.  To  understand  the 
reason  for  this  similarity  of  value  of  dissimilar  com- 
modities, is  to  understand  an  important  part  of  the 
mechanism  of  modern  capitalist  society. 

m 

When  all  their  differences  have  been  carefully 
noted,  all  commodities  have  at  least  one  quality  in 
common.  The  dress  suit  and  the  kitchen  range, 
tooth-picks  and  snowshoes,  pink  parasols  and  sewing 
machines,  are  unlike  each  other  in  every  particular 
save  one  —  they  are  all  products  of  human  labor, 
crystallizations  of  human  labor  power.  Here,  then, 
we  have  the  secret  of  the  mechanism  of  exchange  in 
capitalist  society.  The  amount  of  labor  power  em- 
bodied in  their  production  hi  some  way  is  associated 
with  the  measure  of  the  exchangeable  value  of  the 
commodities.  Their  relative  value  to  one  another 
is  determined  by  the  relative  amounts  of  human 


188  SOCIALISM 

labor-power  embodied  in  them,  and  this  is  ascer- 
tained by  competition  and  the  higgling  of  the  market. 

Stated  in  this  form,  that  the  quantity  of  human 
labor  is  the  basis  and  measure  of  the  value  of  com- 
modities when  exchanged  against  one  another,  the 
labor  theory  of  value  is  beautifully  simple.  At  the 
same  time,  it  is  open  to  certain  very  obvious  criti- 
cisms. It  would  be  absurd  to  contend  that  the  day's 
labor  of  a  coolie  laborer  is  of  equal  value  to  the 
day's  labor  of  a  highly  skilled  mechanic,  or  that  the 
day's  labor  of  an  incompetent  workman  is  of  equal 
value  to  that  of  the  most  proficient.  To  refute  such 
a  theory  is  as  beautifully  simple  as  the  theory  itself. 
In  all  seriousness,  arguments  such  as  these  are  con- 
stantly used  against  the  Marxian  theory  of  value, 
notwithstanding  that  they  do  not  possess  the  slightest 
relation  to  it.  Marxism  is  very  frequently  "refuted" 
by  those  who  do  not  trouble  themselves  to  under- 
stand it. 

The  idea  that  the  quantity  of  labor  embodied  in 
them  is  the  determinant  of  the  value  of  commodities 
did  not  originate  with  Karl  Marx.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  one  of  the  great  fundamental  principles  upon 
which  all  the  classical  economists  are  agreed.  Sir 
William  Petty,  for  example,  in  a  celebrated  passage 
says  of  the  exchange-value  of  corn:  "If  a  man  can 
bring  to  London  an  ounce  of  silver  out  of  the  earth 
in  Peru  in  the  same  time  that  he  can  produce  a 


OUTLINES  OF  ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM         189 

bushel  of  corn,  then  one  is  the  natural  price  of  the 
other ;  now,  if  by  reason  of  new  and  more  easy  mines 
a  man  can  get  two  ounces  of  silver  as  easily  as  for- 
merly he  did  one,  then  the  corn  will  be  as  cheap  at 
ten  shillings  a  bushel  as  it  was  before  at  five  shillings 
a  bushel,  cceteris  paribus."  1 

Adam  Smith,  in  a  well-known  passage,  says:  "The 
real  price  of  everything,  what  everything  really  costs 
to  the  man  who  wants  to  acquire  it,  is  the  toil  and 
trouble  of  acquiring  it.  What  everything  is  really 
worth  to  the  man  who  has  acquired  it,  and  who  wants 
to  dispose  of  it  or  exchange  it  for  something  else,  is 
the  toil  and  trouble  which  it  can  impose  on  other 
people.  Labor  was  the  first  price,  the  original  pur- 
chase money,  that  was  paid  for  all  things.  ...  If 
among  a  nation  of  hunters,  for  example,  it  usually 
tosts  twice  the  labor  to  kill  a  beaver  which  it  does  to 
kill  a  deer,  one  beaver  would  naturally  be  worth  or 
exchange  for  two  deer.  It  is  natural  that  what  is 
usually  the  produce  of  two  days'  or  two  hours' 
labor,  should  be  worth  double  of  what  is  usually  the 
produce  of  one  day's  or  one  hour's  labor."  2 

Benjamin  Franklin,  whose  merit  as  an  economist 
Marx  recognized,  takes  this  view  and  regards  trade 
as  being  "nothing  but  the  exchange  of  labor  for 

1  William  Petty,  A  Treatise  on  Taxes  and  Constitutions  (1662), 
page  32. 

2  Wealth    of    Nations,    second    Thorold    Rogers    edition,    pages 
31-32. 


190  SOCIALISM 

labor,  the  value  of  all  things  being  most  justly 
measured  by  labor."  1  From  the  writings  of  almost 
all  the  great  economists  of  the  classical  school  it 
would  be  easy  to  compile  a  formidable  and  con- 
vincing volume  of  similar  quotations,  equally  em- 
phatic, showing  that  they  all  took  the  same  view 
that  the  quantity  of  human  labor  embodied  in 
commodities  determines  their  exchange-value.  One 
further  quotation,  from  Ricardo,  must,  however, 
suffice :  — 

"To  convince  ourselves  that  this  (quantity  of  labor) 
is  the  real  foundation  of  exchangeable  value,  let  us 
suppose  any  improvement  to  be  made  in  the  means 
of  abridging  labor  in  any  one  of  the  various  processes 
through  which  the  raw  cotton  must  pass  before  the 
manufactured  stockings  come  to  the  market  to  be 
exchanged  for  other  things;  and  observe  the  effects 
which  will  follow.  If  fewer  men  were  required  to 

1  Benjamin  Franklin,  Remarks  and  Facts  Relative  to  the  American 
Paper  Money,  1764,  page  267. 

Marx  thus  speaks  of  Franklin  as  an  economist :  "The  first  sensible 
analysis  of  exchange-value  as  labor  time,  made  so  clear  as  to  seem 
almost  commonplace,  is  to  be  found  in  the  work  of  a  man  of  the  New 
World,  where  the  bourgeois  relations  of  production  imported,  together 
with  their  representatives,  sprouted  rapidly  in  a  soil  which  made  up 
its  lack  of  historical  traditions  with  a  surplus  of  humus.  That  man 
was  Benjamin  Franklin,  who  formulated  the  fundamental  law  of 
modern  political  economy  in  his  first  work,  which  he  wrote  when  a 
mere  youth  (A  Modest  Inquiry  into  the  Nature  and  Necessity  of  a 
Paper  Currency),  and  published  in  1721."  A  Contribution  to  the 
Critique  of  Political  Economy,  English  translation  by  N.  I.  Stone, 
1904,  page  62. 


OUTLINES  OF  ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM         191 

cultivate  the  raw  cotton,  or  if  fewer  sailors  were 
employed  in  navigating,  or  shipwrights  in  construct- 
ing, the  ship  in  which  it  was  conveyed  to  us ;  if  fewer 
hands  were  employed  in  raising  the  buildings  and 
machinery,  or  if  these,  when  raised,  were  rendered 
more  efficient;  the  stockings  would  inevitably  fall 
in  value,  and  command  less  of  other  things.  They 
would  fall  because  a  less  quantity  of  labor  was  neces- 
sary to  their  production,  and  would  therefore  ex- 
change for  a  smaller  quantity  of  those  things  in  which 
no  such  abridgment  of  labor  had  been  made."  * 

It  is  evident  from  the  foregoing  quotations  that 
these  great  writers  regarded  the  quantity  of  human 
labor  spent  as  the  basis  of  value.  It  is  equally  cer- 
tain that  they  do  not  sufficiently  explain  what  is 
meant  by  quantity  of  human  labor.  They  speak  of 
labor  as  that  of  individuals,  or  sets  of  individuals, 
and,  with  the  exception  of  Ricardo,  do  not  appear  to 
conceive  of  social  labor.  It  is  because  they  fail  to 
comprehend  social  labor  that  they  fail  to  satisfac- 
torily solve  the  problem  of  the  nature  and  source  of 
value.  The  difficulties  arising  from  the  variations  in 
human  capacity  and  productiveness  are  solved  by 
Smith  and  Ricardo  and  their  followers  by  insisting 
upon  the  law  of  averages.  It  is  the  average  amount 
of  labor  expended  in  killing  the  beaver  which  counts, 
not  the  actual  individual  labor  in  a  specified  case. 

1  David  Ricardo,  Principles  of  Political  Economy  and  Taxation. 


192  SOCIALISM 

Nor  did  these  writers  overlook  the  important  dif- 
ferentiation between  simple,  unskilled  labor  and 
labor  that  is  highly  skilled.  If  A  in*  ten  hours' 
labor  produces  exactly  double  the  amount  of  exchange- 
value  which  B  produces  in  the  same  time  devoted  to 
labor  of  another  kind,  it  is  obvious  that  the  labor  of 
B  is  not  equal  in  value  to  that  of  A.  Quantity  of 
labor  must,  therefore,  be  measured  by  some  other 
standard  than  time  units.  Despite  a  hundred  pas- 
sages which  seem  to  imply  the  contrary,  Adam  Smith 
recognized  this  very  clearly,  and  attempted  to  solve 
the  riddle  by  a  differentiation  of  skilled  and  unskilled 
labor  in  which  he  likens  skilled  labor  to  a  machine; 
and  insists  that  the  labor  and  tune  spent  in  acquiring 
the  skill  which  distinguishes  skilled  labor  must  be 
reckoned.1 


IV 


Marx  saw  the  soul  of  truth  in  the  labor-value 
theory,  as  propounded  by  his  predecessors,  and  de- 
voted his  wonderful  genius  to  its  development  and 
systematization.  Labor,  he  pointed  out,  has  two 
sides:  the  qualitative  and  the  quantitative.  The 
qualitative  side,  the  difference  in  quality  between 
specially  skilled  and  simple  unskilled  labor,  is  easily 
recognized,  though  the  relative  value  of  the  one  to 

1  Wealth  of  Nations,  second  Thorold  Rogers  edition,  page  106. 


OUTLINES   OF   ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM         193 

the  other  may  be  somewhat  obscure.  The  secret  of 
that  obscurity  lies  hidden  in  the  quantitative  side 
of  labor.  Here  we  must  enter  upon  an  abstract 
inquiry,  that  part  of  the  Marxian  theory  of  value 
which  is  most  difficult  to  comprehend.  Yet  it  is 
not  very  difficult  after  all  to  understand  that  the 
years  devoted  to  learning  his  trade  by  a  mechanical 
engineer,  for  instance,  during  all  of  which  years  he 
must  be  provided  with  the  necessities  of  life,  must  be 
reckoned  somewhere  and  somehow;  and  that  when 
they  are  so  reckoned,  his  day's  labor  may  be  found 
to  contain  an  amount  of  labor  time,  equivalent  to 
two  or  even  several  days'  simple  unskilled  labor. 

Marx  has  been  accused  of  plagiarizing  his  labor- 
value  theory  from  the  Ricardians,  but  it  is  surely 
not  plagiarism  when  a  thinker  sees  the  germ  of  truth 
in  a  theory,  and,  separating  it  from  the  mass  of 
confusion  and  error  which  envelops  it,  restates  it  in 
scientific  fashion  with  all  its  necessary  qualifications. 
Marx  developed  the  idea  of  social  labor  which  Ricardo 
had  propounded.  He  disregarded  individual  labor 
entirely,  and  dealt  only  with  social  labor  cost.  Fur- 
thermore, he  recognized  the  absurdity  of  the  con- 
tention that  the  value  of  commodities  is  determined 
by  the  amount  of  labor,  individual  or  social,  actually 
embodied  in  them.  If  two  workers  are  producing 
precisely  similar  commodities,  say,  coats,  and  one  of 
them  expends  twice  as  much  labor  as  the  other  and 


194  SOCIALISM 

uses  tools  and  methods  representing  twice  the  social 
labor,  it  is  clearly  foolish  to  suppose  that  the  exchange 
value  of  his  coat  will  be  twice  as  great  as  that  of  the 
other  worker,  regardless  of  the  fact  that  their  utility 
is  equal.  The  real  law  of  value,  then,  is  that  the 
value  of  commodities  is  determined  by  the  amount 
of  abstract  labor  embodied  in  them,  or  in  other 
words  by  the  amount  of  social  human  labor  necessary, 
on  the  average,  for  their  production. 

We  may  conveniently  illustrate  this  theory  by  a 
single  concrete  example.  Two  workmen  set  to  work 
each  to  make  a  table.  When  finished,  the  tables 
are  hi  all  respects  alike  so  that  it  is  impossible  to 
distinguish  between  them.  One  of  the  workmen, 
however,  takes  twice  as  long  as  the  other  to  make 
his  table.  He  works  with  clumsy,  old-fashioned 
tools  and  methods,  sawing  his  boards  by  hand  from 
heavy  lumber,  and  so  on.  The  other  workman  uses 
superior  modern  tools  and  methods,  his  boards  are 
sawn  and  planed  by  machinery  and  all  the  economies 
of  production  are  used.  The  amount  of  labor,  not 
only  individual  labor,  but  social  labor,  expended  in 
the  production  of  one  table,  is  twice  as  great  as  in 
the  other.  Now,  always  assuming  that  their  use- 
values  are  equal,  no  one  will  be  willing  to  pay  twice 
as  much  for  one  table  as  for  the  other.  If  the  more 
economical  methods  of  production  are  those  usually 
adopted  in  the  manufacture  of  tables,  then  the  average 


OUTLINES  OF   ECONOMICS   OF  SOCIALISM         195 

value  of  tables  will  be  determined  thereby,  and  tables 
produced  by  the  slower,  less  economical  process,  will 
naturally  command  only  the  same  price  in  the  mar- 
ket, though  embodying  twice  the  amount  of  actual 
labor.  If  we  reverse  the  order  of  this  proposition, 
and  suppose  the  slower,  less  economical  methods  to 
be  those  generally  prevailing  in  the  manufacture  of 
tables,  and  the  quicker,  more  economical  methods  to 
be  exceptional,  then,  all  other  things  being  equal, 
the  exchange-value  of  tables  will  be  determined  by 
the  amount  of  labor  commonly  consumed,  and  the 
fortunate  producer  who  adopts  the  exceptional, 
economical  methods  will,  for  a  time,  reap  a  golden 
harvest.  Only  for  a  time,  however.  As  the  new 
methods  prevail,  competition  being  the  impelling 
force,  they  become  less  exceptional,  and  finally,  the 
regular,  normal  methods  of  production  and  the 
standard  of  value. 

It  is  this  important  qualification  which  is  most 
often  lost  sight  of  by  the  critics  of  the  labor  theory 
of  value.  They  persist  in  applying  to  individual 
commodities  the  test  of  the  amount  of  labor-power 
actually  consumed  hi  their  production,  and  so  con- 
found the  Marxian  theory  with  its  crude  progenitors. 
In  refuting  this  crude  theory,  they  are  utterly  ob- 
livious of  the  fact  that  Marx  himself  accomplished 
that  by  no  means  difficult  task.  To  state  the  Marxian 
theory  accurately,  we  must  qualify  the  bald  state- 


196  SOCIALISM 

ment  that  the  exchange  value  of  commodities  is 
determined  by  the  amount  of  labor  embodied  in  them, 
and  state  it  in  the  following  manner:  The  exchange 
value  of  commodities  is  determined  by  the  amount  of 
average  labor  at  the  time  socially  necessary  for  their 
production.  This  is  determined,  not  absolutely  in 
individual  cases,  but  approximately  in  general,  by 
the  bargaining  .and  higgling  of  the  market,  to  adopt 
Adam  Smith's  well-known  phrase. 


Most  writers  do  not  distinguish  between  price  and 
value  with  sufficient  clearness,  using  the  terms  as  if 
they  were  synonymous  and  interchangeable.  Where 
commodities  are  exchanged  directly  one  for  another, 
as  in  the  barter  of  primitive  society,  there  is  no  need 
of  a  price-form  to  express  value.  In  highly  developed 
societies,  however,  where  the  very  magnitude  of  pro- 
duction and  exchange  makes  direct  barter  impossible, 
and  where  the  objects  to  be  exchanged  are  not  com- 
monly the  product  of  individual  labor,  a  medium  of 
exchange  becomes  necessary;  a  something  which  is 
generally  recognized  as  a  safe  and  stable  commodity 
which  can  be  used  to  express  in  terms  of  its  own 
weight,  size,  shape,  or  color,  the  value  of  other  com- 
modities to  be  exchanged.  This  is  the  function  of 
money.  In  various  times  and  places  wheat,  shells, 


OUTLINES   OF   ECONOMICS   OF  SOCIALISM          197 

skins  of  animals,  beads,  powder,  and  a  multitude  of 
other  things,  have  served  as  money,  but  for  various 
obvious  reasons  the  precious  metals,  gold  and  silver, 
have  been  most  favored. 

In  all  commercial  countries  to-day,  one  or  other  of 
these  metals,  or  both  of  them,  serves  as  the  recognized 
medium  of  exchange.  They  are  commodities,  also, 
and  when  we  say  that  the  value  of  a  commodity  is  a 
certain  amount  of  gold,  we  equally  express  the  value 
of  that  amount  of  gold  in  terms  of  the  commodity  in 
question.  As  commodities,  the  precious  metals  are 
subject  to  the  same  laws  as  other  commodities.  If 
gold  should  be  discovered  in  such  abundance  that  it 
became  as  plentiful  and  easy  to  obtain  as  coal,  its 
value  would  be  no  greater  than  that  of  coal.  It 
might,  conceivably,  though  it  is  not  probable,  still 
be  used  as  the  medium  of  exchange,  but  it  would  be 
equal  to  coal  in  exchange-value,  a  ton  of  the  one  being 
equal  to  a  ton  of  the  other  provided  its  utility-value 
remained.  Since  the  scarcity  of  gold  is  an  important 
element  in  its  utility-value,  creating  and  fostering 
the  desire  for  its  possession,  that  utility-value  might 
largely  disappear  if  gold  became  as  plentiful  as  coal, 
in  which  case  it  would  not  have  the  same  value  as 
coal,  and  might  cease  to  be  a  commodity  at  all. 

Price,  then,  is  the  expression  of  value  in  terms  of 
some  other  commodity,  which,  generally  used  for 
that  purpose  of  expressing  the  value  of  other  com- 


198  SOCIALISM 

modities,  we  call  money.  It  is  only  an  approxima- 
tion of  value,  and  subject  to  fluctuation  to  a  much 
greater  extent  than  value  itself.  It  may,  for  a  time, 
fall  below  value  or  rise  above  it,  but  in  a  free  market 
—  the  only  condition  in  which  the  operation  of  any 
economic  law  may  be  judged  —  sooner  or  later  the 
equilibrium  will  be  regained.  Where  monopoly  ex- 
ists, the  free  market  condition  being  non-existent, 
price  may  rise  far  above  value.  Monopoly-price  is 
an  artificial  elevation  of  price  above  value  and  must 
be  considered  independently. 

Failure  to  discriminate  between  value  and  its 
price-expression  has  led  to  endless  difficulty.  It 
lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  naive  theory  that  value 
depends  upon  the  relation  of  supply  and  demand. 
Lord  Lauderdale's  famous  theory  has  found  much 
support  among  later  economists,  though  it  is  now 
rather  unpopular  when  stated  in  its  old,  simple  form. 
Disguised  in  the  so-called  Austrian  theory  of  final 
utility,  it  has  attained  considerable  vogue.1  The 

1  See  "The  Final  Futility  of  Final  Utility  "  in  Hyndman's  Econom- 
ics of  Socialism,  for  a  remarkable  criticism  of  the  "final  utility" 
theory,  showing  its  identity  with  the  doctrine  of  supply  and  demand 
as  the  basis  of  value. 

I  refer  to  the  theory  of  final  or  marginal  utility  as  the  "so-called 
Austrian  theory"  for  the  purpose  of  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that, 
as  Professor  Seligman  has  ably  and  clearly  demonstrated,  it  was  con- 
ceived and  excellently  stated  by  W.  F.  Lloyd,  Professor  of  Political 
Economy  at  Oxford,  in  1833.  (See  the  paper,  On  Some  Neglected 
British  Economists,  in  the  Economic  Journal,  V,  xiii,  pages,  357-363.) 
This  was  two  decades  before  Gossen  and  a  generation  earlier  than 


OUTLINES   OF   ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM         199 

theory  is  plausible  and  convincing  to  the  ordinary 
mind.  Every  day  we  see  illustrations  of  its  working ; 
prices  are  depressed  when  there  is  an  oversupply, 
and  elevated  when  the  demand  of  would-be  consumers 
exceeds  the  supply  of  the  commodities  they  desire  to 
buy.  It  is  not  so  easy  to  see  that  these  effects  are 
temporary,  and  that  there  is  an  automatic  adjust- 
ment at  work.  Increased  demand  raises  prices  for  a 
time,  but  it  also  calls  forth  an  increase  hi  supply 
which  tends  to  restore  the  old  price  level,  or  may 
even  force  prices  below  it.  In  the  latter  case,  the 
supply  falls  off  and  prices  find  their  real  level.  The 
relation  of  supply  to  demand  causes  an  oscillation  of 
prices,  but  it  is  not  the  determinant  of  value.  When 
prices  rise  above  a  certain  level,  demand  slackens  or 
ceases,  and  prices  are  inevitably  lowered.  Prices 
may  fall  with  a  decreased  demand,  but  it  is  clear 
that  unless  the  producers  can  get  a  price  approxi- 
mately equal  to  the  value  of  their  commodities,  they 
will  cease  to  produce  them,  and  the  supply  will  dimin- 
ish or  cease  altogether.  Ultimately,  therefore,  the 
fluctuations  of  price  through  the  lack  of  equilibrium 
between  supply  and  demand  adjust  themselves,  and 
prices  must  roughly  represent  values  except  under 

artificial   conditions.     Monopoly-price  is,  of  course, 

* 

Menger  and  Jevons.  In  view  of  this  fact,  the  criticisms  of  Marx  for 
his  lack  of  originality  by  members  of  the  "Austrian"  school,  is  rather 
naive  and  amusing. 


200  SOCIALISM 

an  artificial  price  only  in  the  sense  that  the  laws  of 
free  market  exchange  do  not  apply  to  it. 

VI 

Labor,  the  source  and  determinant  of  value,  has, 
per  se,  no  value.  Only  when  it  is  embodied  in  certain 
forms  has  it  any  value.  If  a  man  labors  hard  digging 
holes  and  refilling  them,  the  result  is  quite  valueless. 
What  the  capitalist  buys,  therefore,  is  not  labor  but 
labor-power,  the  ability  and  will  to  labor.  An  excep- 
tion to  this  is  seen  in  the  case  of  piecework,  where 
the  employer  undertakes  to  pay  for  a  given  amount 
of  labor  embodied  in  a  certain  form,  instead  of  for 
a  given  amount  of  labor-tune,  or  labor-power.  But 
here,  again,  it  is  not  labor  per  se  that  is  bought,  but 
labor  in  a  certain  form  and  relation,  embodied  in  a 
commodity.  Wages  in  general  is  a  form  of  payment 
for  certain  amounts  of  labor-power,  measured  by 
duration  and  skill.  The  power  and  will  to  labor 
assume  the  twofold  commodity  character  of  use- 
value  and  exchange-value.  Labor-power  is  a  com- 
modity and  wages  is  its  price. 

Now,  as  a  commodity  labor-power  is  subject  to 
the  same  laws  as  all  other  commodities.  Its  price, 
wages,  fluctuates  just  as  the  price  of  all  other  com- 
modities do,  and  bears  the  same  relation  to  its  value. 
It  may  be  temporarily  affected  by  the  preponderance 


OUTLINES  OF  ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM         201 

of  supply  over  demand,  or  of  demand  over  supply; 
it  may  be  made  the  subject  of  monopoly.  There  is, 
therefore,  no  such  thing  as  an  "iron  law"  of  wages, 
any  more  than  there  is  an  "iron  law"  of  prices  for 
other  commodities  than  labor-power.  There  is,  how- 
ever, this  element  of  truth  in  Lassalle's  famous  law 
of  wages :  as  the  price  of  all  other  commodities  tends, 
under  normal  conditions,  to  approximate  value,  so 
the  price  of  labor-power,  wages,  tends  to  approxi- 
mate its  value.  And  just  as  the  value  of  other  com- 
modities is  determined  by  the  amount  of  labor 
necessary  on  an  average  for  their  reproduction,  so 
the  value  of  labor-power  is  likewise  determined. 
Wages  tend  to  a  point  at  which  they  will  cover  the 
average  cost  of  the  necessary  means  of  subsistence 
for  the  workers  and  their  families,  in  any  given  time 
and  place,  under  the  conditions  and  according  to  the 
standard  of  living  generally  prevailing.  Trade  union 
action  may  force  wages  above  that  point,  or  undue 
stress  hi  the  competitive  labor  market  force  wages 
below  it.  While,  however,  a  trade  union  may  bring 
about  what  is  virtually  a  monopoly-price  for  the 
labor-power  of  its  members,  there  is  always  a  counter 
tendency  in  the  other  direction,  and  even  toward 
lowering  the  standard  of  subsistence  itself  till  it 
reaches  an  irreducible  minimum. 

To  class  human  labor-power  with  pig  iron  or  bad 
butter  as  a  commodity,  subject  to  the  same  laws, 


202  SOCIALISM 

may  at  first  seem  fantastic  to  the  reader,  but  a 
careful  survey  of  the  facts  will  fully  justify  the  classi- 
fication. The  capacity  of  the  worker  to  labor  de- 
pends upon  his  securing  certain  things;  his  labor- 
power  has  to  be  reproduced  from  day  to  day,  for 
which  a  certain  supply  of  food,  clothing,  and  other 
necessities  of  life  is  essential.  Even  with  these  sup- 
plied constantly,  the  worker  sooner  or  later  wears 
out  and  dies.  If  the  race  is  not  to  be  extinguished, 
a  certain  supply  of  the  necessities  of  life  must  be  pro- 
vided for  the  children  during  the  years  of  their  de- 
velopment to  the  point  where  their  labor-power 
becomes  marketable.  The  average  cost  of  production 
in  the  case  of  labor-power  includes,  therefore,  the 
necessities  for  a  wife  and  family  as  well  as  for  the 
individual  worker. 

This  living  commodity,  labor-power,  differs  in  a 
material  way  from  all  other  commodities,  in  that 
when  it  is  used  up  in  the  process  of  the  production 
of  other  commodities  in  which  it  is  embodied,  unlike 
machinery  and  raw  materials,  it  creates  new  value 
in  the  process  of  being  used  up,  and  embodies  that 
new  value  in  the  commodity  it  assists  to  produce. 
This  is  the  central  idea  of  the  famous  and  much- 
misunderstood  Marxian  theory  of  surplus-value  by 
which  the  method  of  capitalism,  the  exploitation  of 
the  wage-workers,  and  the  resulting  class  antagon- 
isms of  the  system  are  explained. 


OUTLINES  OF  ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM         203 

VII 

Earlier  writers  than  Marx,  such  as  Thompson  and 
the  famous  Chartist  leader,  Bronterre  O'Brien,  had 
used  the  term  "Surplus  Value"  to  connote  profit, 
and  it  is  probable  that  Marx  adopted  the  term  be- 
cause of  its  wide  currency  at  the  tune  he  wrote. 
With  these  writers,  however,  surplus-value  was  simply 
another  name  for  profit ;  it  did  not  represent  a  theory 
of  the  nature  and  origin  of  capitalist  income  as  it  did 
laterin  the  hands  of  Marx,  who  showed  that  appro- 

^ ^ -^^^•••^••liBBINWBBI''''**''*^'^^*'**'****''*"''**^*7'^*'^'* 

priation  of  unpaid  labor  is  the  real  source  of  profit; 
that  even  if  the  capitalist  buys  the  laborer's  labor- 
power  at  its  full  value  as  a  commodity,  he  extracts 
from  it  more  value  than  he  paid  for,  and  that  thus 
the  profits  of  the  capitalist  class  are  derived.  The 
surplus-value  theory  thus  becomes  the  scientific 
groundwork  of  all  the  social  theories  and  movements 
protesting  against  and  seeking  to  end  the  exploitation 
of  the  laboring  masses.  It  is  the  foundation  principle 
of  the  modern  political  Socialist  movement,  and  to 
understand  it  is  a  matter  of  paramount  importance. 

One  of  the  ablest  and  best-known  American  So- 
cialist writers  briefly  and  clearly  explains  the  theory 
as  follows : 1  — 

"It  is  possible  for  the  workers,  according  to  methods 
and  under  conditions  now  prevailing,  to  produce  the 

1  Algernon  Lee,  in  The  Worker,  January  29,  1905. 


204  SOCIALISM 

equivalent  of  their  own  day's  subsistence  in  less  than 
a  full  labor  day  —  by  less  than  the  full  amount  of 
labor  that  they  can  do  in  a  day.  Six  hours'  labor, 
probably  four  hours'  labor,  is  sufficient  to  produce  the 
values  of  a  day's  subsistence  —  that  is,  to  reproduce 
the  amount  of  the  daily  wages,  the  value  of  the  labor- 
power  expended  hi  a  day.  But  the  wage-worker 
does  not  work  four  or  six  hours,  producing  the 
equivalent  of  his  own  subsistence,  and  then  go  home 
and  enjoy  himself.  On  the  contrary,  he  works  eight 
or  nine  or  ten  hours,  and  sometimes  considerably 
more.  He  must  do  this,  or  he  gets  no  chance  to  work 
at  all.  The  capitalist  owns  the  factory,  and  controls 
the  opportunities  of  employment;  and  the  capitalist 
is  not  in  business  simply  for  the  purpose  of  allowing 
his  employees  to  get  their  living.  His  motive  in 
allowing  production  to  go  on  is  not  the  workers' 
maintenance  by  their  own  labor,  but  his  own  main- 
tenance by  then-  labor.  His  motive  is  profit. 

"Let  us  say  the  average  cost  of  a  day's  subsistence 
for  the  workers,  according  to  the  existing  standard 
of  living,  is  the  product  of  five  hours'  social  labor, 
and  that  this  is  represented  in  money  by  $1.  Wages, 
then,  are  $1  a  day.  But  the  workers  perform  ten 
hours  of  labor  daily.  Here  are  1000  such  workers 
in  a  factory.  They  use  up  daily  $1000  worth  of  raw 
material.  They  wear  out  the  plant  to  the  extent  of 
$100  a  day  in  so  doing.  They  use  up  $1000  worth 


OUTLINES  OF  ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM         205 

of  labor-power  in  the  process,  and  get  that  value 
back  in  wages,  $1000.  According  to  our  suppositions, 
the  gross  value  of  the  day's  product  will  be  $3100. 
Selling  the  product  at  its  value,  the  employer  will 
get  $3100  for  it. 

"Now  the  whole  of  this  product  belongs  to  the 
capitalist,  for  the  very  good  reason  that  all  the 
elements  that  entered  into  its  production  —  materials, 
machinery,  labor-power  —  belonged  to  him,  he  having 
paid  for  them. 

"Out  of  that  gross  product  of  $3100,  the  capitalist 
must  pay  $1000  for  the  materials  used  up,  $100  for 
repairs  and  replacement  of  the  machinery,  and  $1000 
for  wages,  for  labor-power  bought  and  used  up  - 
$2100  in  all.  There  remains  to  him  $1000,  the  excess 
of  the  normal  product  of  1000  days  of  labor  over  the 
value  of  1000  days  of  labor-power,  the  excess  of  the 
amount  of  value  produced  by  1000  men  in  10  hours 
over  the  amount  of  value  necessary  for  their  suste- 
nance for  a  day." 

From  the  surplus  of  the  laborers'  product  over 
their  necessary  cost  of  subsistence,  the  capitalists 
derive  then*  income.  This  is  the  Marxian  theory  of 
surplus-value  in  a  nutshell.  Rent,  interest,  and 
profit,  the  three  great  divisions  of  capitalist  income 
into  which  this  surplus-value  is  divided,  are  thus 
traced  back  to  the  fundamental  exploitation  of  labor. 
Other  economists,  both  before  and  since  Marx,  have 


206  SOCIALISM 

tried  to  explain  the  source  of  capitalist  income  in 
very  different  ways.  An  early  theory  was  that  profit 
originates  in  exchange,  through  "  buying  cheap  and 
selling  dear."  That  this  is  so  in  the  case  of  indi- 
vidual traders  is  obvious.  If  A  sells  to  B  commodities 
above  their  value,  or  buys  commodities  from  him 
below  their  value,  it  is  plain  that  he  gains  by  it.  But 
it  is  equally  plain  that  B  loses.  If  one  group  of 
capitalists  loses  and  another  group  gains,  the  gains 
and  losses  must  balance  each  other;  there  can  be  no 
gain  to  the  capitalist  class  as  a  whole.  Yet  that  is 
precisely  what  occurs  —  the  capitalist  class  as  a 
whole  does  gain,  and  gain  enormously,  despite  the 
losses  of  individual  members  of  that  class.  It  is 
that  gain  to  the  great  body  of  capitalists,  that  general 
increase  in  their  wealth,  which  must  be  accounted 
for,  and  which  exchange  cannot  explain.  Only  when 
we  think  of  the  capitalist  class  buying  labor-power 
from  outside  its  own  ranks,  generally  at  its  natural 
value,  and  using  it,  is  the  problem  solved.  The  com- 
modity, labor-power,  which  the  capitalist  buys 
creates  a  value  greater  than  its  own  hi  being  used  up. 
The  theory  that  profit  is  the  wages  of  risk  is  an- 
swerable in  substantially  the  same  way.  It  does  not 
in  any  way  explain  the  increase  in  the  aggregate 
wealth  of  the  capitalist  class  to  say  that  the  indi- 
vidual capitalist  must  have  a  chance  to  receive  interest 
upon  his  money  in  order  to  induce  him  to  turn  it  into 


OUTLINES   OF  ECONOMICS  OF   SOCIALISM         207 

capital,  to  hazard  losing  it  wholly  or  in  part.  While 
the  theory  of  risk  helps  to  explain  some  features  of 
capitalism,  the  changes  in  the  flow  of  capital  into 
certain  forms  of  investment,  and,  to  a  small  extent, 
the  commercial  crises  incidental  thereto,  it  does  not 
explain  the  vital  problem  of  the  source  of  capitalist 
income.  The  chances  of  gain  as  a  premium  for  the 
risks  involved,  explain  satisfactorily  enough  the  action  of 
the  gambler  when  he  enters  into  a  game  of  roulette 
or  faro.  It  cannot  be  said,  however,  that  the  aggre- 
gate wealth  of  the  gamblers  is  increased  by  playing 
roulette  or  faro.  Then,  too,  the  risks  of  the  laborers 
are  vastly  more  vital  than  those  of  the  capitalist.  Yet 
the  premium  for  their  risks  of  health  and  life  itself 
does  not  appear,  unless;  indeed,  it  be  hi  then-  wages, 
in  which  case  the  most  superficial  glance  at  our  in- 
dustrial statistics  will  show  that  wages  are  by  nq 
means  highest  in  those  occupations  where  the  risks 
are  greatest.  Further,  the  wages  of  the  risks  for 
capitalists  and  laborers  alike  are  drawn  from  the 
same  source,  the  product  of  the  laborers'  toil. 

To  consider,  even  briefly,  all  the  varied  theories  of 
surplus-value  other  than  that  which  arises  out  of  the 
labor  theory  of  value,  would  be  a  prolonged,  dull, 
and  profitless  task.  The  theory  of  the  reward  of 
abstinence,  that  profit  is  the  due  and  just  reward  of 
the  capitalist  for  saving  part  of  his  wealth  and  using 
it  as  a  means  of  production,  is  answerable  by  a  priori 


208  SOCIALISM 

arguments  and  by  a  vast  volume  of  facts.  Absti- 
nence obviously  produces  nothing;  it  can  only  save 
the  wealth  already  produced  by  labor,  and  no  auto- 
matic increase  of  that  stored  wealth  is  possible.  If 
saved-up  wealth  is  to  increase  without  the  labor  of 
its  owner,  it  can  only  be  through  the  exploitation  of 
the  labor  of  others,  so  that  the  abstinence  theory 
ultimately  proves  the  Marxist  position.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  see  that  those  whose  wealth  increases  most 
rapidly  are  not  given  to  frugality  or  abstinence  by 
any  means.  It  is  certainly  possible  for  an  individual 
by  practicing  frugality  and  abstinence  to  save  enough 
to  enable  him  to  invest  in  some  profitable  enterprise, 
but  the  origin  of  his  profit  is  not  his  abstinence.  That 
comes  from  the  value  created  by  human  labor-power 
over  and  above  its  cost  of  production. 

Still  less  satisfactory  is  the  idea  that  surplus-value 
is  nothing  more  than  the  "wages  of  superintendence," 
or  the  "rent  of  ability."  This  theory  has  been  ad- 
vocated with  much  specious  argument.  Essentially 
it  involves  the  contention  that  there  is  no  distinction 
between  wages  and  profits,  or  between  capitalists  and 
laborers;  that  the  capitalist  is  a  worker,  and  his 
profits  simply  wages  for  his  useful  and  highly  im- 
portant work  of  directing  industry.  It  is  a  bold 
theory  with  a  very  small  basis  of  fact.  Whoever 
honestly  considers  it,  must  see  that  it  is  absurd  and 
untrue.  Not  only  is  the  larger  part  of  industry 


OUTLINES  OF  ECONOMICS  OF  SOCIALISM         209 

managed  to-day  by  salaried  employees  who  have  no 
part,  or  only  a  small  part,  in  the  ownership  of  the 
concerns  they  manage,  but  the  profits  are  distributed 
among  shareholders  who  have  never  contributed 
service  of  any  kind  to  the  industries  hi  which  they 
are  shareholders.  Whatever  services  are  performed 
even  by  the  figurehead,  "dummy"  directors  of 
companies,  are  paid  for  before  profits  are  considered 
at  all.  As  Mr.  Algernon  Lee  says :  — 

"The  profits  produced  in  many  American  mills, 
factories,  mines,  and  railway  systems  go  in  part  to 
Englishmen  or  Belgians  or  Germans  who  never  set 
foot  in  America  and  who  obviously  can  have  no  share 
in  even  the  mental  labor  of  direction.  A  certificate 
of  stock  may  belong  to  a  child,  to  a  maniac,  to  an 
imbecile,  to  a  prisoner  behind  the  bars,  and  it  draws 
profit  for  its  owner  just  the  same.  Stocks  and  bonds 
may  lie  for  months  or  years  hi  a  safe-deposit  vault, 
while  an  estate  is  being  disputed,  before  their  owner- 
ship is  determined;  but  whoever  is  declared  to  be 
the  owner  gets  the  dividends  and  interest  "earned" 
during  all  that  tune."  l 

Finally,  it  is  not  claimed  that  the  whole  of  the 
surplus-value  produced  in  any  enterprise  is  appro- 
priated by  the  direct  employer.  This  happens  but 
rarely,  when  the  individual  employer  is  the  owner 
of  all  the  capital  used  in  the  enterprise.  As  a  rule, 

1  The  Worker,  February  5,  1905. 

p 


210  SOCIALISM 

the  employer  has  to  pay  rent  for  the  buildings  and  the 
land  he  uses,  and  interest  upon  borrowed  money, 
mortgages,  and  so  on.  These  payments  must  come 
out  of  the  surplus-value  extracted  from  the  labor 
of  the  wage-workers  employed.  How  the  surplus- 
value  which  they  produce  is  divided  among  land- 
lords, moneylenders,  creditors,  speculators,  and  actual 
employers  is  a  matter  of  absolutely  no  moment  or 
interest  to  the  workers  as  a  class.  That  is  why  such 
movements  as  the  followers  of  Mr.  Henry  George 
represent  fail  to  vitally  interest  the  working  class.1 
The  division  of  the  surplus-value  wrung  from  the 
workers'  toil  gives  rise  to  much  quarrel  and  strife 
within  the  capitalist  class,  but  the  working  class 
recognizes,  and  vaguely  feels  where  it  does  not  clearly 
recognize,  that  it  has  no  interest  in  these  quarrels. 
All  that  interests  it  vitally  is  how  to  lessen  the  ex- 
tent of  the  exploitation  to  which  it  is  subjected,  and 
how  ultimately  to  end  that  exploitation  altogether. 
Organization  along  lines  of  trade  unionism  can  do 
something,  but  very  little,  to  lessen  the  extent  of 
the  exploitation;  the  socialization  of  the  means  of 
production  and  exchange  alone  can  end  it. 

1  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  taxation  of  land  values,  commonly 
associated  with  the  name  of  Henry  George,  was  advocated  in^the 
Communist  Manifesto. 


CHAPTER  IX 

OUTLINES  OF  THE   SOCIALIST  STATE 


IT  would  be  absurd,  and  contrary  to  Socialist 
principles,  to  attempt  to  give  detailed  specifications 
of  the  Socialist  state.  There  are,  however,  certain 
fundamental  principles  which  are  essential  to  its 
existence.  Without  them,  Socialist  society  is  impos- 
sible. If  we  can  take  these  principles  and  correlate 
them,  we  shall  obtain  a  suggestive  outline  of  the 
Socialist  state.  So  far  we  may  safely  proceed  with 
full  scientific  sanction;  beyond  are  the  realms  of 
fancy  and  dreams,  the  Elysian  fields  of  Utopia. 

Society  consists  of  an  aggregation  of  individuals, 
but  it  is  something  more  than  that ;  it  is^an  organism, 
though  as  yet  an  imperfectly  developed  oneT***Wtfile 
the  units  of  which  it  is  composed  have  distinct  and 
independent  lives  within  certain  limits,  they  are, 
outside  of  those  limits,  interdependent  and  inter- 
related. Man  is  governed  by  two  %reat  forces.  On 
the  one  hand,  ne^js^sentially  an  egoist,  ever  striving 

211 


212  SOCIALISM 

to  individual  freedom;  on  the  other  hand,  he  is  a 
social  animal,  ever  seeking  association  and  avoiding 
isolation.  This  duality  expresses  itself  in  the  com- 
position of  society.  There  is  a  struggle  between  its 
members  motived  by  the  desire  for  individual  ex- 
pansion; and,  alongside  of  it,  a  sense  of  solidarity, 
a  movement  to  mutual,  reciprocal  relations,  motived 
by  the  gregarian  instinct.  All  social  life  is  necessarily 
an  oscillation  between  these  two  motives.  The  social 
problem  in  its  last  analysis  is  nothing  more  than  the 
problem  of  combining  and  harmonizing  social  and 
individual  interests  and  actions  springing  there- 
from. 

In  dealing  with  this  social  problem,  the  problem1, 
<  of  how  to  secure  harmony  of  social  and  individual  • 
interests  and  actions,  it  is  necessary  first  of  all  to 
recognize  that  both  the  motives  named  are  equally 
V  important  and  necessary  agents  of  human  progress. 
The  idea  largely  prevails  that  Socialists  ignore  the 
individual  motive  and  consider  only  the  social  motive, 
just  as  the  ultra-individualists  have  erred  in  an  oppo- 
site discrimination.  The  Socialist  state  has  been 
conceived  as  a  great  bureaucracy.  Mr.  Anstey  gave 
humorous  and  vivid  expression  to  this  idea  in  Punch 
some  years  ago,  when  he  represented  the  citizens  of 
the  Socialist  state  as  being  all  clothed  alike,  known 
only  by  numbers,  living  in  barracks,  strangers  to  all 
the  joys  of  family  life,  plodding  through  their  allotted 


OUTLINES  OF  THE   SOCIALIST  STATE  213 

tasks  under  a  race  of  hated  bureaucrats,  and  having 
the  solace  of  chewing  gum  in  their  leisure  time  as  a 
specially  paternal  provision.  Some  such  mental  pic- 
ture must  have  inspired  Herbert  Spencer's  Coming 
Slavery,  and  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  early  forms 
of  Socialist  propaganda  by  pictures  of  imaginary 
cooperative  commonwealths  afforded  some  excuse 
for  the  idea.  Most  intelligent  Socialists,  if  called 
upon  to  choose  between  them,  would  probably  prefer 
to  live  hi  Thibet  under  a  personal  despotism,  rather 
than  under  the  rule  of  the  hierarchies  of  some  of  these 
imaginary  commonwealths  which  Utopian  Socialists 
have  depicted. 

The  Socialist  ideal  may  be  said  to  be  a  form  of 
social  organization .  hi  which  every  individual  will 
enjoy  the  greatest  possible  amount  of  freedom  for 
self-development  and  expression ;  and  in  which  social 
authority  will  be  reduced  to  the  minimum  necessary 
for  the  preservation  and  insurance  of  that  right  to 
all  individuals.  There  is  an  incontestable  right  of 
the  individual  to  full  and  free  self-development  and 
expression.  It  is  not,  however,  an  absolute  right,  but 
is  subject  to  such  restrictions  as  may  be  necessary  to 
safeguard  the  like  right  of  another  individual,  or  of 
society  as  a  whole.  Absolute  personal  liberty  is  not 
possible:  to  grant  it  to  one  individual  would  be 
equivalent  to  denying  it  to  others.  If,  in  a  certain 
community,  a  need  is  commonly  felt  for  a  system  of 


214  SOCIALISM 

drainage  to  save  the  citizens  from  the  perils  of  a  pos- 
sible outbreak  of  typhoid  or  some  other  epidemic 
disease,  and  all  the  citizens  agree  upon  a  scheme 
except  two  or  three,  who,  in  the  name  of  personal 
liberty,  declare  that  their  property  must  not  be 
touched,  what  is  to  be  done?  If  the  citizens,  out  of 
solicitude  for  the  personal  liberty  of  the  objecting 
individuals,  abandon  or  modify  their  plans,  is  it  not 
clear  that  the  liberty  of  the  many  has  been  sacrificed 
to  the  liberty  of  the  few,  which  is  the  essence  of 
tyranny  ?  Absolute  individual  liberty  is  incompatible 
with  social  liberty.  The  liberty  of  each  must,  in 
Mill's  phrase,  be  bounded  by  the  like  liberty  of  all. 
Absolute  personal  liberty  is  a  chimera,  a  delusion. 

The  dual  forces  which  serve  as  the  motives  of 
individual  and  collective  action,  spring,  unquestion- 
ably, from  the  fact  that  individuals  are  at  once  alike 
and  unlike,  equal  and  unequal.  Alike  in  our  needs 
of  certain  fundamental  necessities,  such  as  food, 
clothing,  shelter,  cooperation  for  producing  these 
necessities,  for  protection  from  foes,  human  and 
other,  we  are  unlike  in  tastes,  temperament,  character, 
will,  and  so  on,  till  our  diversity  becomes  as  great  and 
as  general  as  our  likeness.  Now,  the  problem  is  to 
insure  equal  opportunities  of  full  development  to  all 
these  diversely  constituted  and  endowed  individuals, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  to  maintain  the  principle  of 
equal  obligations  to  society  on  the  part  of  every  in- 


OUTLINES  OF  THE   SOCIALIST  STATE  215 

dividual.  This  is  the  problem  of  social  justice:  to 
insure  to  each  the  same  social  opportunities,  to  secure 
from  each  a  recognition  of  the  same  obligations  toward 
all.  The  basic  principle  of  the  Socialist  state  must 
be  justice;  no  privileges  or  favors  can  be  extended  to 
any  individuals  or  groups  of  individuals. 

II 

Politically,  the  organization  of  the  Socialist  state 
must  be  democratic.  Socialism  without  democracy 
is  as  impossible  as  a  shadow  without  light.  The  word 
"Socialism  "  is  a  monstrous  misnomer  when  applied 
to  schemes  of  paternalism  or  government  ownership 
which  lack  the  essential,  vital  principle  of  democracy. 
Justice  requires  that  the  legislative  power  of  society 
rest  upon  universal  suffrage  and  the  political  equality 
of  all  men  and  women,  except  lunatics  and  criminals. 
It  is  manifestly  unjust  to  exact  obedience  to  the  laws 
from  those  who  have  had  no  share  in  making  them 
and  can  have  no  share  hi  altering  them.  The  only 
exceptions  to  this  principle  are  (1)  minors,  children 
not  yet  arrived  at  the  age  of  responsibility  agreed 
upon  by  the  citizens;  (2)  lunatics  and  certain  classes 
of  criminals;  (3)  aliens,  non-citizens  temporarily 
resident  in  the  state. 

Democracy  in  the  sense  of  popular  self-govern- 
ment, the  "government  of  the  people,  by  the  people, 
and  for  the  people,"  of  which  political  rhetoricians 


216  SOCIALISM 

boast,  is  only  approximately  attainable.  While  all 
can  equally  participate  in  the  legislative  power,  all 
cannot  participate  directly  in  the  administrative 
power,  and  it  becomes  necessary,  therefore,  to  adopt 
the  principle  of  delegated  authority,  representative 
government.  Direct  legislation  by  the  people  might 
be  realized  through  the  adoption  of  the  principles  of 
popular  initiative  and  referendum,  proportional  repre- 
sentation, and  the  right  of  recall.  Indeed,  there  is 
no  apparent  reason  why  all  legislation,  except  tempo- 
rary legislation  as  in  war  time,  famine,  plague,  and 
such  abnormal  conditions,  should  not  be  directly 
initiated  and  enacted,  leaving  only  the  just  and 
proper  enforcement  of  the  law  to  delegated  authority. 
In  all  the  programmes  of  Socialist  parties  through- 
out the  world,  the  principles  of  popular  initiative 
and  referendum,  proportional  representation,  and  the 
right  of  recalling  representatives  are  included  at  the 
present  tune ;  not  merely  as  means  to  secure  a  greater 
degree  of  real  democracy  within  the  existing  social 
system,  but  also,  and  primarily,  to  prepare  the  re- 
quired political  framework  of  democracy  for  the 
industrial  commonwealth  of  the  future. 

The  great  political  problem  for  such  a  society  con- 
sists in  choosing  wisely  the  trustees  of  this  important 
social  function  and  authority,  and  seeing  that  they 
rightly  use  it  for  the  common  good,  without  abuse, 
either  for  the  profit  of  themselves  or  their  friends,  and 


OUTLINES   OF   THE   SOCIALIST  STATE  217 

without  prejudice  to  any  portion  of  society.  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  an  "automatic  democracy,"  and 
eternal  vigilance  will  be  the  price  of  liberty  under 
Socialism  as  it  has  ever  been.  There  can  be  no  other 
safeguard  against  the  usurpation  of  power  than  the 
popular  will  and  conscience  ever  alert  upon  the 
watch-towers. 

Ill 

With  these  general  principles  prevised,  we  may 
consider,  briefly,  what  are  the  respective  rights  of 
the  individual  and  of  society.  The  rights  of  the 
individual  may  be  summarized  as  follows:  There 
must  be  perfect  freedom  of  movement,  including  the 
right  to  withdraw  from  the  domain  of  the  government, 
to  migrate  at  will  to  other  territories ;  immunity  from 
arrest,  except  from  infringing  others'  rights,  with 
compensation  for  improper  arrest;  respect  of  the 
privacy  of  domicile  and  correspondence;  full  liberty 
of  dress,  subject  to  decency;  freedom  of  utterance, 
whether  by  speech  or  publication,  subject  only  to 
the  protection  of  others  from  insult,  injury,  or  inter- 
ference with  their  equal  liberties.  Absolute  freedom 
of  the  individual  in  all  that  pertains  to  art,  science, 
philosophy,  and  religion,  and  their  teaching,  or  prop- 
aganda, is  essential.  The  state  can  rightly  have 
nothing  to  do  with  these  matters;  they  belong  to 
the  personal  life  alone.  Art,  science,  philosophy, 


218  SOCIALISM 

and  religion  cannot  be  protected  by  any  authority, 
nor  is  such  protection  needed. 

In  this  summary  only  certainties,  imperative, 
essential  conditions,  have  been  included.  Doubt- 
less many  Socialists  would  considerably  extend  the 
list  of  things  to  be  totally  exempted  from  collective 
authority  and  control.  Some,  for  instance,  would 
include  the  right  of  the  individual  to  possess  and 
bear  arms  for  the  defense  of  person  and  property. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  might  be  objected  with  good 
show  of  reason  by  other  Socialists  that  such  a  right 
must  always  be  liable  to  abuses  imperiling  the  peace 
of  society,  and  that  the  same  ends  would  be  served 
more  surely  if  individual  armament  were  made  im- 
possible. Other  Socialists  would  include  in  the 
category  of  private  acts  outside  the  .sphere  of  law 
the  union  of  the  sexes.  They  would  do  away  with 
legal  intervention  in  marriage  and  make  it  exclu- 
sively a  private  concern.  On  the  other  hand,  again, 
many  Socialists,  probably  an  overwhelming  ma- 
jority, would  object.  They  would  insist  that  the 
state  must,  in  the  interest  of  the  children  and  for 
its  own  self-preservation,  assume  certain  respon- 
sibilities for,  and  exercise  a  certain  control  over, 
all  marriages.  While  believing  that  under  Social- 
ism marriage  would  no  longer  be  subject  to  economic 
motives  —  matrimonial  markets  for  titles  and  for- 
tunes no  longer  existing  —  and  that  the  maximum 


OUTLINES   OF  THE   SOCIALIST   STATE  219 

of  personal  freedom  together  with  the  minimum  of 
social  authority  would  be  possible  in  the  union  of 
the  sexes,  they  would  still  insist  upon  the  necessity 
of  that  minimum  of  legal  control.  While,  there- 
fore, our  hasty  summary  by  no  means  exhausts  the 
category  of  personal  liberties,  it  is  sufficiently  com- 
prehensive to  show  that  individual  freedom  would 
by  no  means  be  crushed  out  of  existence  by  the 
Socialist  state.  The  intolerable  bureaucracy  of  col- 
lectivism is  wholly  an  imaginary  evil. 

In  the  same  general  manner,  we  may  summarize 
the  principal  functions  of  the  state 1  as  follows : 
the  state  has  the  right  and  the  power  to  organize 
and  control  the  economic  system,  comprehending 
in  that  term  the  production  and  distribution  of  all 
social  wealth  wherever  private  enterprise  is  danger- 
ous to  the  social  well-being,  or  is  inefficient;  the 
defense  of  the  community  from  invasion,  from  fire, 
flood,  famine,  or  disease;  the  relations  with  other 
states,  such  as  trade  agreements,  boundary  treaties, 
and  the  like;  the  maintenance  of  order,  including 
the  juridical  and  police  systems  in  all  then*  branches; 
and  public  education  in  all  its  departments.  It 
will  be  found  that  these  five  groups  of  functions 
include  all  the  services  which  the  state  may  properly 
undertake,  and  that  not  one  of  them  can  be  safely 

1  I  use  the  word  "state"  throughout  in  its  largest,  most  compre- 
hensive sense  as  meaning  the  whole  political  organization  of  society. 


220  SOCIALISM 

intrusted  to  private  enterprise.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  assume  that  the  state  must 
have  an  absolute  monopoly  of  any  one  of  these  groups 
of  functions  to  be  performed  in  the  social  organism. 
It  would  not  be  necessary,  for  example,  for  the  state 
to  prohibit  its  citizens  from  entering  into  voluntary 
relations  with  the  citizens  of  other  countries  for  the 
promotion  of  friendly  international  relations,  for 
trade  reciprocity,  and  so  on.  Likewise  the  juridical 
functions  being  in  the  hands  of  the  state  would  not 
prevent  voluntary  arbitration.  Our  study  becomes, 
therefore,  a  study  of  social  physiology. 

The  principle  already  postulated,  that  the  state 
must  undertake  the  production  and  distribution  of 
social  wealth  wherever  private  enterprise  is  danger- 
ous, or  less  efficient  than  public  enterprise,  clarifies 
somewhat  the  problem  of  the  industrial  organiza- 
tion of  the  Socialist  regime,  which  is  a  vastly  more 
difficult  problem  than  that  of  its  political  organiza- 
tion. Socialism  by  no  means  involves  the  suppres- 
sion of  all  private  property  and  industry ;  only  when 
these  fail  in  efficiency  or  result  in  injustice  and  in- 
equality of  benefits  does  socialization  present  itself. 
There  are  many  petty,  subordinate  industries,  es- 
pecially the  making  of  articles  of  luxury,  which  might 
be  allowed  to  remain  in  private  hands,  subject  only 
to  such  general  regulation  as  might  be  found  neces- 
sary for  the  protection  of  health  and  the  public 


OUTLINES   OF  THE   SOCIALIST  STATE  221 

order.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  things,  natural 
monopolies,  which  cannot  be  justly  or  efficiently 
used  by  private  enterprise.  Land  ownership  and 
all  that  depends  thereon,  such  as  mining,  transpor- 
tation, and  the  like,  must  of  necessity  be  collective 
and  universal.1 

In  the  Socialist  state,  then,  certain  forms  of  pri- 
vate industry  will  be  tolerated,  and  perhaps  even 
definitely  encouraged,  but  the  great  fundamental 
economic  activities  will  be  socialized.  The  Socialist 
state  will  not  be  static  and,  consequently,  what  at 
first  may  be  regarded  as  being  properly  the  subject 
of  private  enterprise  may  develop  to  an  extent  or 
in  directions  which  necessitate  its  transformation  to 
the  category  of  essentially  social  properties.  Hence, 
when  the  Socialist  state  is  here  spoken  of,  it  is  not 
by  any  means  intended  to  describe  the  full  limits 
of  socialization,  the  fully  developed  collectivist 
commonwealth,  but  rather  the  opposite  limits,  the 
minimum  of  socialization;  the  conditions  essential 
to  that  stage  of  social  evolution  at  which  it  will  be 
possible  to  speak  of  capitalism  as  a  past  and  out- 
grown stage,  and  of  the  present  as  the  new  era  of 
Socialism. 

Socialists,  naturally,  differ  upon  this  point  very 
materially.  To  the  present  writer,  however,  it 

1  Of  course  this  does  not  mean  that  there  must  not  be  private  use 
of  land. 


222  SOCIALISM 

would  seem  sufficiently  comprehensive  to  say  that 
the  economic  structure  of  the  new  society  must 
include  at  least  the  following:  (1)  Ownership  of  all 
natural  resources,  such  as  land,  mines,  forests,  oil 
wells,  and  so  on;  (2)  operation  of  all  the  means  of 
transportation  and  communication  other  than  those 
of  purely  personal  service;  (3)  operation  of  all 
industrial  production  involving  large  capital  and 
associated  labor,  except  where  carried  on  by  vol- 
untary, democratic  cooperation;  (4)  organization 
of  all  labor  essential  to  the  public  service,  such  as 
the  building  of  schools,  hospitals,  docks,  roads, 
bridges,  sewers,  and  the  like;  the  construction  of 
all  the  machinery  and  plant  requisite  to  the  social 
production  and  distribution,  and  of  things  necessary 
for  the  maintenance  of  those  engaged  in  such  public 
services  as  the  national  defense  and  all  who  are 
wards  of  the  state ;  (5)  a  monopoly  of  the  monetary 
and  credit  functions,  including  coinage,  banking, 
mortgaging,  and  the  extension  of  credit  to  private 
enterprise.  With  these  economic  activities  under- 
taken by  the  state,  a  pure  democracy  differing  vi- 
tally from  all  the  class-dominated  states  of  history, 
private  enterprise  would  by  no  means  be  excluded, 
but  limited  to  an  extent  making  the  exploitation  of 
public  interests  and  needs  for  private  gain  impossible. 
Socialism  thus  becomes  the  defender  of  individual 
liberty,  not  its  enemy. 


OUTLINES  OF  THE   SOCIALIST  STATE  223 

IV 

As  owner  of  the  earth  and  all  the  major  instru- 
ments of  production  and  exchange,  society  would 
occupy  a  position  enabling  it  to  see  that  the  physical 
and  mental  benefits  derived  from  its  wealth,  its 
natural  resources,  its  collective  experience,  genius, 
and  labor,  were  universalized  as  befits  a  democ- 
racy. It  would  be  able  to  guarantee  the  right  to 
live  by  labor  to  all  its  citizens  through  preventing 
the  monopolization  of  the  land  and  instruments 
and  social  opportunities  in  general.  It  would  be 
hi  a  position  to  make  every  development  from 
competition  to  monopoly  the  occasion  for  further 
socialization.  Thus  there  would  be  no  danger  to 
the  state  in  permitting,  or  even  fostering,  private 
industry  within  the  limits  suggested.  As  the  organ- 
izer of  the  vast  body  of  labor  essential  to  the 
operation  of  the  main  productive  and  distributive 
functions  of  society,  and  to  the  other  public  services, 
the  state  would  be  able  to  set  the  standard  of  living, 
alike  with  regard  to  income  and  leisure,  which  pri- 
vate industry  would  be  compelled,  by  competitive 
force,  to  observe.  The  regulation  of  production, 
too,  would  be  possible,  and  as  a  result  the  crises 
arising  from  glutted  markets  would  disappear. 
Finally,  in  the  control  of  all  the  functions  of  credit, 
the  state  would  effectually  prevent  the  exploitation 


224  SOCIALISM 

of  the  mass  of  the  people  through  financial  agencies, 
which  is  perhaps  the  greatest  evil  of  our  present 
social  system. 

The  application  of  the  principles  of  democracy 
to  the  organization  and  administration  of  these 
great  economic  services  of  production,  exchange, 
and  credit  is  a  problem  full  of  alluring  possibilities 
of  speculation.  "This  that  they  call  the  Organiza- 
tion of  Labor,"  said  Carlyle,  "is  the  Universal 
Vital  Problem  of  the  World."  It  is  the  great  cen- 
tral problem  of  the  socialization  of  industry  and 
the  state,  before  which  all  other  problems  pale  into 
insignificance.  It  is  comparatively  easy  to  picture 
an  ideal  political  democracy,  and  the  main  structural 
economic  organization  of  the  Socialist  regime,  with 
its  private  and  public  functions  more  or  less  clearly 
defined,  is  not  very  difficult  of  conception.  These 
are  foreshadowed  with  varying  degrees  of  distinct- 
ness in  present  society,  and  the  light  of  experience 
illumines  the  pathway  before  us.  It  is  when  we  come 
to  the  question  of  the  spirit  of  the  economic  organi- 
zation of  the  future,  the  methods  of  direction  and 
management,  that  the  light  fails  and  we  must  grope 
our  way  into  the  great  unknown  with  imagination 
and  our  sense  of  justice  for  guides. 

Most  Socialist  writers  who  have  attempted  to  deal 
with  this  subject  have  simply  regarded  the  state  as 
the  greatest  employer  of  labor,  carrying  on  its  busi- 


OUTLINES  OF  THE   SOCIALIST  STATE  225 

ness  upon  methods  not  materially  different  from 
those  adopted  by  the  great  industrial  corporations 
of  to-day.  Boards  of  experts,  chosen  by  civil  ser- 
vice methods,  directing  all  the  economic  activities 
of  the  state,  such  is  then-  general  conception  of  the 
industrial  democracy  of  the  Socialist  regime.  They 
believe,  in  other  words,  that  the  methods  now  em- 
ployed by  the  capitalist  state,  and  by  individuals 
within  the  capitalist  state,  would  simply  be  extended 
under  the  Socialist  regime.  If  this  be  so,  a  psycho- 
logical anomaly  appears  in  the  practical  abandon- 
ment of  the  claim  that,  as  a  result  of  the  class  con- 
flict in  society,  the  public  ownership  evolved  within 
the  capitalist  state  is  essentially  inferior  to  the  pub- 
lic ownership  of  the  Socialist  ideal.  It  is  perfectly 
clear  that  if  the  industrial  organization  under  Social- 
ism is  to  be  such  that  the  workers  employed  in  any 
industry  have  no  more  voice  in  its  management  than 
the  postal  employees  in  this  country  have  at  the 
present  time,  it  cannot  be  otherwise  than  absurd 
to  speak  of  it  as  an  industrial  democracy. 

Here,  in  truth,  lies  the  crux  of  the  greatest  prob- 
lem of  all.  We  must  face  the  fact  that,  hi  anything 
worthy  of  the  name  of  an  industrial  democracy,  the 
terms  and  conditions  of  employment  cannot  be 
decided  wholly  without  regard  to  the  will  of  the 
workers  themselves  on  the  one  hand,  nor,  on  the 
other  hand,  by  the  workers  alone  without  reference 


226  SOCIALISM 

to  the  general  body  of  the  citizenry.  If  the  former 
method  fails  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  democ- 
racy by  ignoring  the  will  of  the  workers  in  the  organi- 
zation of  industry,  the  alternative  method  involves 
a  hierarchical  government,  equally  incompatible 
with  democracy.  Some  way  must  be  found  by 
which  the  industrial  government  of  society,  the 
organization  of  production  and  distribution,  may  be 
securely  based  upon  the  dual  basis  of  common  civic 
rights  and  the  rights  of  the  workers  in  their  special 
relations  as  such. 

In  actual  practice  to-day,  in  those  industries  in 
which  the  organization  of  the  workers  into  unions 
has  been  most  successful,  the  workers,  through  their 
organizations,  do  exercise  a  certain  amount  of  con- 
trol over  the  conditions  of  their  employment.  They 
make  trade  agreements,  for  instance,  in  which  such 
matters  as  wages,  hours  of  labor,  apprenticeship, 
output,  engagement  and  discharge  of  workers,  and 
numerous  other  matters  of  a  like  nature,  are  made 
subject  to  the  joint  control  of  the  employers  and  the 
workers.  Of  course,  this  share  in  the  control  of  the 
industry  in  which  they  are  employed  is  a  right 
enjoyed  only  as  the  fruit  of  conquest,  won  by  war 
and  maintained  only  by  ceaseless  vigilance  and  armed 
strength.  It  is  not  inconceivable,  however,  that  in 
the  Socialist  state  there  might  be  a  frank  extension 
of  this  principle.  The  workers  in  the  main  groups 


OUTLINES   OF   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE  227 

of  industries  might  form  autonomous  organizations 
for  the  administration  of  their  special  interests, 
subject  only  to  certain  fundamental  laws  of  society 
and  its  government.  Thus,  the  trades  unions  would 
become  administrative  politico-economic  organiza- 
tions, after  the  manner  of  the  mediaeval  guilds,  in- 
stead of  mere  agencies  of  class  warfare  as  at  present. 
The  economic  organization  of  the  Socialist  state 
would  consist,  then,  of  three  distinct  forms,  as  fol- 
lows: (1)  Private  production  and  exchange,  subject 
only  to  such  general  supervision  and  control  by  the 
state  as  the  interests  of  society  demand,  such  as 
protection  against  monopolization,  sanitary  laws, 
and  the  like;  (2)  voluntary  cooperation,  subject  to 
similar  supervision  and  control;  (3)  production  and 
exchange  by  the  state,  the  administration  to  be  by 
the  autonomous  organizations  of  the  workers  in 
industrial  groups,  subject  to  the  fundamental  laws 
and  government  of  society  as  a  whole. 


Two  other  functions  of  the  economic  organization 
of  society  remain  to  be  considered,  the  distribution  of 
labor  and  its  remuneration.  In  the  organization 
of  industry  society  will  have  to  achieve  a  twofold 
result,  a  maximum  of  general,  social  efficiency,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  of  personal  liberty  and  comfort 
to  the  workers  on  the  other.  The  state  would  not 


228  SOCIALISM 

only  guarantee  the  right  to  labor,  but,  as  a  corol- 
lary, it  would  impose  the  duty  of  labor  upon  every 
competent  person.  The  Pauline  injunction,  "If 
any  man  will  not  work,  neither  shall  he  eat,"  would 
be  applied  in  the  Socialist  state  to  all  except  the 
incompetent  to  labor.  The  immature  child,  the 
aged,  the  sick  and  infirm  members  of  society,  would 
alone  be  exempted  from  labor.  The  result  of  this 
would  be  that  instead  of  a  large  unemployed  army, 
vainly  seeking  the  right  to  work,  on  the  one  hand, 
accompanied  by  the  excessive  overwork  of  the  great 
mass  of  the  workers  fortunate  enough  to  be  em- 
ployed, a  vast  increase  in  the  number  of  producers 
from  this  one  cause  alone  would  make  possible  much 
greater  leisure  for  the  whole  body  of  workers.  Ben- 
jamin Franklin  estimated  that  in  his  day  four  hours' 
labor  from  every  adult  male  able  to  work  would  be 
more  than  sufficient  to  provide  wealth  enough  for 
all  human  wants;  and  it  is  certain  that,  without 
resorting  to  any  standards  of  Spartan  simplicity,  or 
denying  luxury  and  beauty  to  any  individual,  Frank- 
lin's estimate  could  be  easily  realized  with  anything 
approaching  a  scientific  organization  of  labor. 

Not  only  would  the  productive  forces  be  enor- 
mously increased  by  the  absorption  of  those  workers 
who  under  the  present  system  are  unemployed,  and 
those  who  do  not  labor  or  seek  labor;  in  addition  to 
these,  there  would  be  a  tremendous  transference  of 


OUTLINES   OF  THE   SOCIALIST  STATE  229 

potential  productive  energy  from  occupations  ren- 
dered obsolete  and  unnecessary  by  the  socialization 
of  society.  Thus,  there  are  to-day  tens  of  thou- 
sands of  lawyers,  bankers,  traders,  middlemen, 
speculators,  and  others,  whose  functions,  necessary 
to  the  capitalist  system,  would,  in  most  cases,  cease 
to  have  any  value.  They  would  be  compelled  be- 
cause of  this  to  enter  the  producing  class.  The 
possibilities  of  the  scientific  organization  of  industry 
are  almost  unlimited.  Every  gain  made  by  the  state 
in  the  direction  of  economy  of  production  would 
test  the  private  enterprise  existing  and  urge  it  on  in 
the  same  direction.  Likewise,  every  gain  made  by 
the  private  producers  would  test  the  social  produc- 
tion and  urge  it  onward.  Whether  socialized  pro- 
duction extended  its  sphere,  or  remained  confined 
to  its  minimum  limitations,  would  depend  upon  the 
comparative  success  or  failure  resulting.  The  state 
would  not  be  able  to  arbitrarily  extend  its  functions. 
The  decision  would  rest  with  the  people,  who  would, 
naturally,  resort  to  social  effort  wherever  it  demon- 
strated its  ability  to  perform  any  function  more 
efficiently  than  private  enterprise,  with  greater 
advantages  of  comfort  and  liberty  to  the  community 
and  to  the  individual. 

While  in  the  Socialist  regime  labor  would  be 
compulsory,  it  is  inconceivable  that  a  free  people 
would  tolerate  a  bureaucratic  rule  assigning  to  each 


230  SOCIALISM 

individual  his  or  her  proper  task,  no  matter  how 
ingenious  the  system  of  assignment  might  be.  Just 
as  it  is  necessary  to  insist  that  all  must  be  secured 
in  their  right  to  labor,  and  required  to  labor,  it  is 
necessary  also  that  the  choice  of  one's  occupation 
should  be  as  far  as  possible  personal  and  free,  sub- 
ject only  to  the  laws  of  supply  and  demand.  The 
greatest  amount  of  personal  freedom  compatible 
with  the  requisite  efficiency  would  be  secured  to  the 
workers  in  their  chosen  occupations  through  their 
craft  organizations. 

But,  it  will  be  objected,  all  occupations  are  not 
equally  desirable.  There  are  certain  forms  of  work 
which,  disagreeable  in  themselves,  are  just  as  essen- 
tial to  the  well-being  of  society  as  the  most  artistic 
and  pleasing.  Who  will  do  the  dirty  work,  the 
hard  work,  the  dangerous  work,  under  Socialism? 
Will  these  occupations  also  be  left  to  choice,  and, 
if  so,  will  there  not  be  an  insurmountable  difficulty 
arising  from  the  natural  reluctance  of  men  to  choose 
such  work? 

VI 

In  affirming  the  principle  of  free  choice  the  Social- 
ist is  called  upon  to  show  that  the  absence  of  com- 
pulsion would  not  involve  the  neglect  of  these  dis- 
agreeable, but  highly  important,  social  services; 
that  it  would  be  compatible  with  social  safety  to 


OUTLINES   OF  THE   SOCIALIST  STATE  231 

leave  them  to  personal  choice.  In  the  first  place, 
much  of  this  kind  of  work  that  is  now  performed 
by  human  labor  could  be  more  efficiently  done  by 
mechanical  means.  Much  of  the  work  done  by 
sweated  women  and  children  in  our  cities  is  in  fact 
done  in  competition  with  machines.  Machinery 
has  been  invented,  and  is  now  available,  to  do  thou- 
sands of  the  disagreeable  and  hurtful  things  now 
being  done  by  human  beings.  Professor  Franklin 
H.  Giddings  is  perfectly  right  when  he  says:  "Mod- 
ern civilization  does  not  require,  it  does  not  need, 
the  drudgery  of  needlewomen  or  the  crushing  toil 
of  men  hi  a  score  of  life-destroying  occupations. 
If  these  wretched  beings  should  drop  out  of  exis- 
tence and  no  others  take  their  places,  the  economic 
activities  of  the  world  would  not  greatly  suffer.  A 
thousand  devices  latent  in  inventive  brains  would 
quickly  make  good  any  momentary  loss."  * 

When,  in  England,  a  law  was  passed  forbidding 
the  practice  of  forcing  little  boys  through  chimneys, 
to  clean  them,  chimneys  did  not  cease  to  be  swept. 
Other,  less  disagreeable  and  less  dangerous,  means 
were  quickly  invented.  When  the  woolen  manu- 
facturers were  prevented  from  employing  little  boys 
and  girls,  they  invented  the  piecing  machine.2  Thou- 

1  "Ethics  of  Social  Progress,"  by  Professor  Franklin  H.  Giddings 
in  Philanthropy  and  Social  Progress  (1893),  page  226. 

2  "The  Economics  of  Factory  Legislation,"  in  The  Case  for  the 
Factory  Acts,  edited  by  Mrs.  Sidney  Webb,  page  50. 


232  SOCIALISM 

sands  of  instances  might  be  compiled  to  support 
the  contention  of  Professor  Giddings,  equally  as 
pertinent  as  these.  Another  important  point  is 
that  the  amount  of  such  disagreeable  and  danger- 
ous work  to  be  done  would  be  very  much  less  than 
now.  That  would  certainly  result  from  the  scien- 
tific organization  of  industry.  I  suspect  that,  if 
the  subject  could  be  properly  investigated,  it  could 
be  shown  that  the  amount  of  such  labor  involved 
in  wasteful  and  unnecessary  advertising  alone  is 
enormous. 

Still,  with  all  possible  reduction  of  the  quantity 
of  such  work  to  be  done,  and  with  all  the  mechanical 
genius  possible,  it  may  be  freely  conceded  that  there 
would  be  some  work  quite  dangerous,  altogether 
disagreeable  and  repellent,  and  a  great  difference  in 
the  degree  of  attractiveness  in  some  occupations  as 
compared  with  others.  But  an  occupation  repel- 
lent in  itself  might  be  made  attractive,  if  the  hours 
of  labor  were  relatively  few  as  compared  with  other 
occupations.  If  six  hours  be  regarded  as  the  normal 
working  day,  it  is  quite  easy  to  believe  that,  for 
sake  of  the  larger  leisure,  with  its  opportunities 
for  the  pursuit  of  special  interests,  many  a  man 
would  gladly  accept  a  disagreeable  position  for  three 
hours  a  day.  The  same  holds  true  of  superior  re- 
muneration. Under  the  Socialist  regime,  just  as 
to-day,  many  a  man  would  gladly  exchange  his  work 


OUTLINES   OF  THE   SOCIALIST  STATE  233 

for  less  pleasant  work,  if  the  remuneration  offered 
were  higher.  To  the  old  Utopian  ideas  of  absolute 
equality  and  uniformity  these  methods  would  be 
fatal,  but  they  are  not  at  all  incompatible  with 
modern,  scientific  Socialism.  Finally,  we  must  not 
forget  that  there  is  a  natural  inequality  of  talent, 
of  power.  In  any  state  of  society  most  men  will 
prefer  to  do  the  things  they  are  best  fitted  for,  the 
things  they  can  do  easiest  and  best.  And  the  man 
who  feels  himself  best  fitted  to  be  a  hewer  of  wood 
or  drawer  of  water  will  choose  that  rather  than  some 
loftier  task.  There  is  no  reason  at  all  to  suppose 
that  leaving  the  choice  of  occupation  to  the  individ- 
ual would  involve  the  slightest  risk  to  society. 

That  equality  of  remuneration  is  not  an  essential 
condition  of  the  Socialist  regime,  we  have  already 
seen.  It  may  be  freely  admitted,  however,  that 
the  ideal  to  be  aimed  at,  ultimately,  must  be  approx- 
imate equality  of  income.  Otherwise,  class  forma- 
tions must  take  place  and  the  old  problems  incidental 
to  economic  inequality  reappear.  With  such  an 
industrial  democracy  as  I  have  suggested  as  being 
essential  to  the  Socialist  state,  there  is  little  doubt 
that  this  result  would  be  gradually  attained.  Let 
us  consider  briefly  now  the  method  of  the  remunera- 
tion of  labor. 

Socialists  are  too  often  judged  by  their  shibboleths 
rather  than  by  the  principles  which  those  shibbo- 


234  SOCIALISM 

leths  imperfectly  express,  or  seek  to  express.  De- 
claiming, rightly,  against  the  wages  system  as  a  form 
of  slave  labor,  the  "abolition  of  wage  slavery" 
forever  inscribed  on  their  banners,  the  average  man 
is  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Socialists  are 
working  for  a  system  in  which  the  workers  will  divide 
their  actual  products  and  then  barter  the  surplus 
for  the  surplus  products  of  other  workers.  Either 
that,  or  the  most  rigid  system  of  governmental 
production  and  a  method  of  distributing  rations 
and  uniforms  similar  to  that  which  obtains  in  the 
military  organization  of  present-day  governments. 
It  is  easily  seen,  however,  that  such  plans  do  not, 
on  the  one  hand,  conform  to  the  democratic  ideal  of 
the  Socialists,  nor  would  either  of  them,  on  the  other 
hand,  be  compatible  with  the  wide  personal  liberty 
herein  put  forward  as  characteristic  of  the  Socialist 
state. 

The  earlier  Utopian  Socialists  did  propose  to  do 
away  with  wages;  in  fact,  they  proposed  to  abolish 
money  altogether,  and  invented  various  forms  of 
"Labor  Notes"  as  a  means  of  giving  equality  of 
remuneration  for  given  quantities  of  labor,  and 
providing  a  medium  for  the  exchange  of  wealth. 
But  when  the  Socialists  of  to-day  speak  of  the  "abo- 
lition of  wages,"  or  of  the  wages  system,  they  use 
the  words  in  the  same  sense  as  they  speak  of  the 
abolition  of  capital;  they  would  abolish  only  the  social 


OUTLINES  OF  THE   SOCIALIST  STATE  235 

relations  implied  in  the  terms.  Just  as  they  do  not 
mean  by  the  abolition  of  capital  the  destruction  of 
the  machinery  and  implements  of  production,  but 
the  social  relation  in  which  they  are  used  to  create 
profit  for  the  few ;  so,  when  they  speak  of  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  wages  system,  they  mean  only  the  use 
of  wages  to  exploit  the  producers  for  the  gam  of  the 
owners  of  the  means  of  production  and  exchange. 
Though  the  name  "wages"  might  not  be  changed,  a 
money  payment  for  labor  in  a  democratic  arrange- 
ment of  industry,  representing  an  approximation 
to  the  full  value  of  the  labor,  minus  only  its  share 
of  the  cost  of  maintaining  the  social  services,  and 
the  weaker,  dependent  members  of  society,  is  vastly 
different  from  a  money  payment  for  labor  by  one 
individual  to  other  individuals,  representing  an 
approximation  to  then*  cost  of  living,  bearing  no 
relation  to  the  value  of  the  labor  products,  and  paid 
in  lieu  of  those  products  with  a  view  to  the  gathering 
of  a  rich  surplus  by  the  payer. 

Karl  Kautsky,  perhaps  the  greatest  living  ex- 
ponent of  the  theories  of  modern  Socialism,  has  made 
this  point  perfectly  clear.  He  accepts  without 
reserve  the  belief  that  wages,  unequal  and  paid  in 
money,  will  be  the  method  of  remuneration  for  labor 
in  the  Socialist  regime.  When  too  many  laborers 
rush  into  certain  branches  of  industry,  the  natural  way 
to  lessen  their  number  and  to  increase  the  number 


236  SOCIALISM 

of  laborers  in  other  branches  where  there  is  need 
for  them,  will  be  to  reduce  wages  in  the  one  and  to 
increase  them  in  the  other.  Socialism,  instead  of  being 
defined  as  an  attempt  to  make  men  equal,  might  per- 
haps be  more  justly  and  accurately  defined  as  a  social 
system  based  upon  the  natural  inequalities  of  man- 
kind. Not  human  equality,  but  equality  of  oppor- 
tunity to  prevent  the  creation  of  artificial  inequalities 
by  privilege  is  the  essence  of  Socialism. 

What,  it  may  be  asked,  will  society  do  to  prevent 
the  hoarding  of  wealth  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
exploitation  of  the  spendthrift  by  the  abstinent? 
Here,  as  throughout  this  discussion,  we  must  be  care- 
ful to  avoid  the  appearance  of  laying  down  dogmatic 
rules,  giving  categorical  replies  to  questions  which 
the  future  will  answer  in  its  own  way.  At  best  we 
can  only  speculate  as  to  what  possible  answers  to 
such  questions  are  compatible  with  the  fundamental 
principles  of  Socialism.  Thus  we  may  safely  answer 
that  in  the  Socialist  regime  society  will  not  attempt 
to  dictate  to  the  individual  how  he  shall  spend  his 
income.  If  Jones  prefers  objects  d'art  and  Smith 
prefers  fast  horses  or  a  steam  yacht,  each  will  be 
free  to  follow  his  inclinations  so  far  as  his  resources 
will  permit.  If,  on  the  contrary,  one  should  prefer 
to  hoard  his  wealth,  he  would  be  free  to  do  so.  The 
inheritance  of  such  accumulated  property  would, 
however,  necessarily  be  denied,  society  being  the 


OUTLINES  OF  THE   SOCIALIST  STATE  237 

only  possible  inheritor  of  property.  In  this  way,  full 
play  for  individual  liberty  would  be  coupled  with  full 
security  for  society.  There  would  be  no  danger  of  a 
ruling  class  as  a  result  of  natural  inequalities. 

With  such  conditions  as  these,  it  is  not  difficult 
to  suppose  that  the  tendency  to  hoard  wealth  would 
largely  disappear.  In  the  same  way,  we  must  re- 
gard the  possibilities  of  the  exploitation  of  man  by 
man  developing  in  the  Socialist  state,  through  the 
wastefulness  and  improvidence  of  the  one  and  the 
frugality,  abstinence,  and  cunning  of  the  other,  as 
slight.  With  the  credit  functions  entirely  in  the 
hands  of  the  state,  the  improvident  man  would  be 
able  to  obtain  credit  upon  the  same  securities  as 
from  a  private  creditor,  without  undue  exploitation. 
Society  would  further  secure  itself  against  the  weak- 
ness and  failure  of  the  improvident  by  insuring  all  its 
members  against  sickness,  accident,  and  old  age. 

VII 

The  administration  of  justice  is  necessarily  a  social 
function  in  a  democratic  society.  All  juridical  func- 
tions should  be  socialized  in  the  strict  sense  of  being 
maintained  at  the  social  expense  for  the  free  service 
of  the  citizens.  Court  fees,  advocates'  charges, 
and  other  like  expenses  incidental  to  the  admin- 
istration of  justice  in  present  society,  are  all  anti- 
democratic and  subversive  of  justice. 


238  SOCIALISM 

Finally,  education  is  likewise  a  social  necessity 
which  society  itself  must  assume  responsibility  for. 
We  have  discovered  that  for  self-protection  society 
must  insist  upon  a  certain  minimum  of  education 
for  every  child  able  to  receive  it;  that  it  is  too  vital 
a  matter  to  be  left  to  the  option  of  parents  or  the 
desires  of  the  immature  child.  We  have  made  a 
certain  minimum  of  education  compulsory  and  free; 
the  Socialist  state  would  make  a  minimum  —  prob- 
ably larger  than  our  present  minimum  —  compul- 
sory, but  it  would  also  make  all  education  free. 
From  the  first  stages,  in  the  kindergartens,  to  the 
last,  in  the  universities,  education  must  be  wholly 
free.  So  long  as  a  single  bar  exists  to  prevent  any 
child  from  receiving  all  the  education  it  is  capable  of 
profiting  by,  democracy  is  unattained. 

Whether  the  Socialist  regime  could  tolerate  the 
existence  of  elementary  schools  other  than  its  own, 
such  as  privately  conducted  kindergartens  and 
schools,  religious  schools,  and  so  on,  is  questionable. 
Probably  not.  It  would  probably  not  content  itself 
with  refusing  to  permit  religious  doctrines  or  ideas 
to  be  taught  in  its  schools,  but  would  go  further, 
and,  as  the  natural  protector  of  the  child,  guard  its 
independence  of  thought  in  later  life  as  far  as  pos- 
sible by  forbidding  religious  teaching  of  any  kind 
in  schools  for  children  up  to  a  certain  age.  Beyond 
that  age,  religious  education,  in  all  other  than  the 


OUTLINES  OF  THE   SOCIALIST  STATE  239 

public  schools,  would  be  freely  permitted.  This 
restriction  of  religious  education  to  the  years  of 
judgment  and  discretion  implies  no  hostility  to  reli- 
gion on  the  part  of  the  state,  but  neutrality.  Not 
the  least  important  of  the  rights  of  the  child  is  the 
right  to  be  protected  from  influences  which  bias  the 
mind  and  destroy  the  possibilities  of  independent 
judgment  in  later  life,  or  make  it  attainable  only  as 
a  result  of  bitter,  needless,  tragic  experience. 

In  this  brief  suggested  outline  of  the  Socialist 
state,  the  aim  has  been  to  show  that  the  Socialist  ideal 
is  far  from  being  the  network  of  laws  commonly 
imagined,  or  the  mechanical  arrangement  of  human 
relations  devised  by  Utopian  romancers.  If  the 
Socialist  propaganda  of  to-day  largely  consists  of 
the  advocacy  of  laws,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
these  are  to  ameliorate  conditions  in  the  existing  social 
system.  The  Socialist  ideal  of  the  state  of  the  future 
is  not  a  life  completely  enmeshed  in  a  network  of 
government,  but  a  life  controlled  by  government  as 
little  as  possible  —  a  maximum  of  personal  freedom 
with  a  minimum  of  restraint. 

"  These  things  shall  be  !    A  loftier  race 
Than  e'er  the  world  hath  known  shall  rise 
With  flower  of  freedom  in  their  souls 
And  light  of  science  in  their  eyes."  * 

1  J.  Addington  Symonds. 


APPENDIX 

NATIONAL   PLATFORM    OF   THE   SOCIALIST 
PARTY  OF  AMERICA 

ADOPTED  BY  THE  CHICAGO  CONVENTION,  MAY  8,  1904 

I 

THE  Socialist  Party,  in  convention  assembled, 
makes  its  appeal  to  the  American  people  as  the  de- 
fender and  preserver  of  the  idea  of  liberty  and  self- 
government  in  which  the  nation  was  born;  as  the 
only  political  movement  standing  for  the  programme 
and  principles  by  which  the  liberty  of  the  individual 
may  become  a  fact;  as  the  only  political  organiza- 
tion that  is  democratic,  and  that  has  for  its  purpose 
the  democratizing  of  the  whole  of  society. 

To  this  idea  of  liberty  the  Republican  and  Demo- 
cratic parties  are  equally  false.  They  alike  struggle 
for  power  to  maintain  and  profit  by  an  industrial 
system  which  can  be  preserved  only  by  the  complete 
overthrow  of  such  liberties  as  we  already  have,  and 
by  the  still  further  enslavement  and  degradation  of 
labor. 

R  241 


242  SOCIALISM 

Our  American  institutions  came  into  the  world  in 
the  name  of  freedom.  They  have  been  seized  upon 
by  the  capitalist  class  as  the  means  of  rooting  out 
the  idea  of  freedom  from  among  the  people.  Our 
state  and  national  legislatures  have  become  the  mere 
agencies  of  great  propertied  interests.  These  in- 
terests control  the  appointments  and  decisions  of 
the  judges  of  our  courts.  They  have  come  into  what 
is  practically  a  private  ownership  of  all  the  functions 
and  forces  of  government.  They  are  using  these  to 
betray  and  conquer  foreign  and  weaker  peoples,  in 
order  to  establish  new  markets  for  the  surplus  goods 
which  the  people  make,  but  are  too  poor  to  buy. 
They  are  gradually  so  invading  and  restricting  the 
right  of  suffrage  as  to  take  away  unawares  the  right 
of  the  worker  to  a  vote  or  voice  in  public  affairs.  By 
enacting  new  and  misinterpreting  old  laws,  they  are 
preparing  to  attack  the  liberty  of  the  individual  even 
to  speak  or  think  for  himself,  or  for  the  common  good. 

By  controlling  all  the  sources  of  social  revenue,  the 
possessing  class  is  able  to  silence  what  might  be  the 
voice  of  protest  against  the  passing  of  liberty  and 
the  coming  of  tyranny.  It  completely  controls  the 
university  and  public  school,  the  pulpit  and  the  press, 
and  the  arts  and  literatures.  By  making  these  eco- 
nomically dependent  upon  itself,  it  has  brought  all 
the  forms  of  public  teaching  into  servile  submission 
to  its  own  interests. 


THE    SOCIALIST   PARTY   OF   AMERICA  243 

Our  political  institutions  are  also  being  used  as 
the  destroyers  of  that  individual  property  upon  which 
all  liberty  and  opportunity  depend.  The  promise 
of  economic  independence  to  each  man  was  one  of 
the  faiths  upon  which  our  institutions  were  founded. 
But,  under  the  guise  of  defending  private  property, 
capitalism  is  using  our  political  institutions  to  make 
it  impossible  for  the  vast  majority  of  human  beings 
ever  to  become  possessors  of  private  property  in  the 
means  of  life. 

Capitalism  is  the  enemy  and  destroyer  of  essential 
private  property.  Its  development  is  through  the 
legalized  confiscation  of  all  that  the  labor  of  the  work- 
ing class  produces,  above  its  subsistence-wage.  The 
private  ownership  of  the  means  of  employment 
grounds  society  in  an  economic  slavery  which  ren- 
ders intellectual  and  political  tyranny  inevitable. 

Socialism  comes  so  to  organize  industry  and  society 
that  every  individual  shall  be  secure  in  that  private 
property  in  the  means  of  life  upon  which  his  liberty 
of  being,  thought,  and  action  depends.  It  comes  to 
rescue  the  people  from  the  fast-increasing  and  suc- 
cessful assault  of  capitalism  upon  the  liberty  of  the 
individual. 

II 

As  an  American  Socialist  Party,  we  pledge  our 
fidelity  to  the  principles  of  international  Socialism, 


244  SOCIALISM 

as  embodied  in  the  united  thought  and  action  of 
the  Socialists  of  all  nations.  In  the  industrial  de- 
velopment already  accomplished,  the  interests  of 
the  world's  workers  are  separated  by  no  national 
boundaries.  The  condition  of  the  most  exploited 
and  oppressed  workers,  in  the  most  remote  places  of 
the  earth,  inevitably  tends  to  drag  down  all  the 
workers  of  the  world  to  the  same  level.  The  tendency 
of  the  competitive  wage  system  is  to  make  labor's 
lowest  condition  the  measure  or  rule  of  its  universal 
condition.  Industry  and  finance  are  no  longer 
national  but  international,  in  both  organization  and 
results.  The  chief  significance  of  national  boundaries, 
and  of  the  so-called  patriotisms  which  the  ruling 
class  of  each  nation  is  seeking  to  revive,  is  the  power 
which  these  give  to  capitalism  to  keep  the  workers 
of  the  world  from  uniting,  and  to  throw  them  against 
each  other  in  the  struggles  of  contending  capitalist 
interests  for  the  control  of  the  yet  unexploited 
markets  of  the  world,  or  the  remaining  sources  of 
profit. 

The  Socialist  movement,  therefore,  is  a  world- 
movement.  It  knows  of  no  conflicts  of  interests 
between  the  workers  of  one  nation  and  the  workers 
of  another.  It  stands  for  the  freedom  of  the  workers 
of  all  nations;  and,  in  so  standing,  it  makes  for  the 
full  freedom  of  all  humanity. 


THE   SOCIALIST   PARTY   OF  AMERICA  245 

III 

The  Socialist  movement  owes  its  birth  and  growth 
to  that  economic  development  or  world-process 
which  is  rapidly  separating  a  working  or  producing 
class  from  a  possessing  or  capitalist  class.  The  class 
that  produces  nothing  possesses  labor's  fruits,  and 
the  opportunities  and  enjoyments  these  fruits  afford, 
while  the  class  that  does  the  world's  real  work  has 
increasing  economic  uncertainty,  and  physical  and 
intellectual  misery,  for  its  portion. 

The  fact  that  these  two  classes  have  not  yet  become 
fully  conscious  of  their  distinction  from  each  other, 
the  fact  that  the  lines  of  division  and  interest  may 
not  yet  be  clearly  drawn,  does  not  change  the  fact 
of  the  class  conflict. 

This  class  struggle  is  due  to  the  private  ownership 
of  the  means  of  employment,  or  the  tools  of  pro- 
duction. Wherever  and  whenever  man  owned  his 
own  land  and  tools,  and  by  them  produced  only  the 
things  which  he  used,  economic  independence  was 
possible.  But  production,  or  the  making  of  goods, 
has  long  ceased  to  be  individual.  The  labor  of  scores, 
or  even  thousands,  enters  into  almost  every  article 
produced.  Production  is  now  social  or  collective. 
Practically  everything  is  made  or  done  by  many 
men  —  sometimes  separated  by  seas  or  continents 
—  working  together  for  the  same  end.  But  this 


246  SOCIALISM 

cooperation  in  production  is  not  for  the  direct  use  of 
the  things  made  by  the  workers  who  make  them, 
but  for  the  profit  of  the  owners  of  the  tools  and  means 
of  production ;  and  to  this  is  due  the  present  division 
of  society  into  two  classes  ;  and  from  it  have  sprung 
all  the  miseries,  inharmonies,  and  contradictions  of 
our  civilization. 

Between  these  two  classes  there  can  be  no  possible 
compromise  or  identity  of  interests,  any  more  than 
there  can  be  peace  in  the  midst  of  war,  or  light  in  the 
midst  of  darkness.  A  society  based  upon  this  class 
division  carries  in  itself  the  seeds  of  its  own  destruc- 
tion. Such  a  society  is  founded  in  fundamental  in- 
justice. There  can  be  no  possible  basis  for  social 
peace,  for  individual  freedom,  for  mental  and  moral 
harmony,  except  in  the  conscious  and  complete 
triumph  of  the  working  class  as  the  only  class  that 
has  the  right  or  power  to  be. 

IV 

The  Socialist  programme  is  not  a  theory  imposed 
upon  society  for  its  acceptance  or  rejection.  It  is  but 
the  interpretation  of  what  is,  sooner  or  later,  inevitable. 
Capitalism  is  already  struggling  to  its  destruction. 
It  is  no  longer  competent  to  organize  or  administer 
the  work  of  the  world,  or  even  to  preserve  itself. 
The  captains  of  industry  are  appalled  at  their  own 
inability  to  control  or  direct  the  rapidly  socializing 


THE    SOCIALIST   PARTY   OF   AMERICA  247 

forces  of  industry.  The  so-called  trust  is  but  a  sign 
and  form  of  the  developing  socialization  of  the  world's 
work.  The  universal  increase  of  the  uncertainty  of 
employment,  the  universal  capitalist  determination 
to  break  down  the  unity  of  labor  in  the  trades  unions, 
the  widespread  apprehensions  of  impending  change, 
reveal  that  the  institutions  of  capitalist  society  are 
passing  under  the  power  of  inhering  forces  that  will 
soon  destroy  them. 

Into  the  midst  of  the  strain  and  crisis  of  civiliza- 
tion, the  Socialist  movement  comes  as  the  only  con- 
servative force.  If  the  world  is  to  be  saved  from 
chaos,  from  universal  disorder  and  misery,  it  must 
be  by  the  union  of  the  workers  of  all  nations  in  the 
Socialist  movement.  The  Socialist  Party  comes  with 
the  only  proposition  or  programme  for  intelligently 
and  deliberately  organizing  the  nation  for  the  common 
good  of  all  its  citizens.  It  is  the  first  tune  that  the 
mind  of  man  has  ever  been  directed  toward  the  con- 
scious organization  of  society. 

Socialism  means  that  all  those  things  upon  which 
the  people  in  common  depend  shall  by  the  people  in 
common  be  owned  and  administered.  It  means  that 
the  tools  of  employment  shall  belong  to  their  creators 
and  users;  that  all  production  shall  be  for  the  direct 
use  of  the  producers ;  that  the  making  of  goods  for 
profit  shall  come  to  an  end ;  that  we  shall  all  be 
workers  together  ;  and  that  all  opportunities  shall 
be  open  and  equal  to  all  men. 


248  SOCIALISM 


To  the  end  that  the  workers  may  seize  every  pos- 
sible advantage  that  may  strengthen  them  to  gain 
complete  control  of  the  powers  of  government,  and 
thereby  the  sooner  establish  the  cooperative  com- 
monwealth, the  Socialist  Party  pledges  itself  to  watch 
and  work,  in  both  the  economic  and  the  political 
struggle,  for  each  successive  immediate  interest  of 
the  working  class ;  for  shortened  days  of  labor  and 
increases  of  wages ;  for  the  insurance  of  the  workers 
against  accident,  sickness,  and  lack  of  employment; 
for  pensions  for  aged  and  exhausted  workers;  for 
the  public  ownership  of  the  means  of  transportation, 
communication,  and  exchange;  for  the  graduated 
taxation  of  incomes,  inheritances,  franchises,  and 
land  values,  the  proceeds  to  be  applied  to  the  public 
employment  and  improvement  of  the  conditions  of 
the  workers;  for  the  complete  education  of  children, 
and  their  freedom  from  the  workshop  ;  for  the  pre- 
vention of  the  use  of  the  military  against  labor  in 
the  settlement  of  strikes  ;  for  the  free  administration 
of  justice ;  for  popular  government,  including  in- 
itiative, referendum,  proportional  representation, 
equal  suffrage  of  men  and  women,  municipal  home 
rule,  and  the  recall  of  officers  by  their  constituents; 
and  for  every  gain  or  advantage  for  the  workers  that 
may  be  wrested  from  the  capitalist  system,  and  that 


THE   SOCIALIST   PARTY   OF  AMERICA  249 

may  relieve  the  suffering  and  strengthen  the  hands 
of  labor.  We  lay  upon  every  man  elected  to  any 
executive  or  legislative  office  the  first  duty  of  striv- 
ing to  procure  whatever  is  for  the  workers'  most 
immediate  interest,  and  for  whatever  will  lessen  the 
economic  and  political  powers  of  the  capitalist,  and 
increase  the  like  powers  of  the  worker. 

But,  in  so  doing,  we  are  using  these  remedial 
measures  as  means  to  the  one  great  end,  of  the  co- 
operative commonwealth.  Such  measures  of  relief 
as  we  may  be  able  to  force  from  capitalism  are  but  a 
preparation  of  the  workers  to  seize  the  whole  powers 
of  government,  in  order  that  they  may  thereby  lay 
hold  of  the  whole  system  of  industry,  and  thus  come 
into  their  rightful  inheritance. 

To  this  end  we  pledge  ourselves,  as  the  party  of 
the  working  class,  to  use  all  political  power,  as  fast 
as  it  shall  be  intrusted  to  us  by  our  fellow-workers, 
both  for  their  immediate  interests  and  for  their 
ultimate  and  complete  emancipation.  To  this  end 
we  appeal  to  all  the  workers  of  America,  and  to  all 
who  will  lend  their  lives  to  the  service  of  the  workers 
in  their  struggle  to  gain  their  own,  and  to  all  who  will 
nobly  and  disinterestedly  give  their  days  and  ener- 
gies unto  the  workers'  cause,  to  cast  in  their  lot  and 
faith  with  the  Socialist  Party.  Our  appeal  for  the 
trust  and  suffrages  of  our  fellow-workers  is  at  once 
an  appeal  for  their  common  good  and  freedom,  and 


250  SOCIALISM 

for  the  freedom  and  blossoming  of  our  common  hu- 
manity. In  pledging  ourselves,  and  those  we  repre- 
sent, to  be  faithful  to  the  appeal  which  we  make, 
we  believe  that  we  are  but  preparing  the  soil  of  that 
economic  freedom  from  which  will  spring  the  free- 
dom of  the  whole  man. 


INDEX 


Abb6  Lancellotti,  quoted,  26. 

A  Contribution  to  the  Critique  of 
Political  Economy,  77,  162,  166, 
171,  190. 

Adams,  Brooks,  128. 

AFRICA  :  American  investments 
in,  101 ;  cannibalism  in,  67 ; 
Moors  in,  79;  slavery  in,  24. 

Agriculture,  concentration  in,  103, 
108-112,  121. 

Aix-la-Chapelle,  conference  of 
sovereigns  at,  44-45. 

A  Lecture  on  Human  Happi- 
ness, 165. 

"Alfred"  (Samuel  Kydd)  quoted, 
21. 

Amalgamated  Association  of  Iron 
and  Steel  Workers,  156. 

Amalgamated  Society  of  Railway 
Servants,  157-158. 

AMERICA  :  class  divisions  and 
struggles  in,  139-146 ;  discov- 
ery of,  78-80 ;  first  cotton  from 
used  in  England,  29 ;  foreign 
capital  invested  in,  101.  See 
also  UNITED  STATES. 

American  Farmer,  The,  110,  111. 

American  Federationist,  The,  11  n. 

American  Federation  of  Labor, 
the,  145. 

American  Revolution,  the,  68. 

A  Modest  Inquiry  into  the  Nature 
and  Necessity  of  a  Paper  Cur- 
rency, 190  n. 

ANARCHISM  :  Socialism  and,  1 ; 
Socialism  opposed  to,  144. 

Anaximander,  181. 

Ancient  Society,  86  n. 

An  Inquiry  Concerning  Political 
Justice,  164. 


An  Inquiry  into  the  Principles  of 
the  Distribution  of  Wealth,  164. 

Anstey,  Mr.,  satire  on  the  Socialist 
regime,  212. 

Anthracite  coal  strike  of  1903, 
the,  138. 

Aristotle,  70,  87. 

Arkwright,  English  inventor,  17. 

ASIA  :  American  capital  invested 
in,  101 ;  savages  in  Central,  79 ; 
supposed  origin  of  feudalism 
in,  90. 

Athens,  88. 

A  Treatise  on  Taxes  and  Consti- 
tutions, 32  n. 

Australia,  American  capital  in- 
vested in,  101. 

Austrian  Labor  Almanac,  the, 
57  n. 

"Austrian  School"  of  economists, 
the,  198. 

Aveling,  Edward,  77  n.,  169  n. ; 
Eleanor  Marx,  169  n. 


Bachofen,  85. 

Baden,   concentration   of  wealth 

in,  116. 

Bakunin,  Michael,  57. 
Bantu  tribes  of  Africa,  86. 
Bax,  E.  Belfort,  53  n.,  58  n.,  77n. 
Beaulieu,  Leroy,  116. 
Bellamy,  Edward,  7. 
Bernstein,  Edward,    114,  164. 
Bigelow,  Melville,  M.,  128  n. 
Blanc,  Louis,  9. 
Bookstaver,  Justice,  156. 
Bray,  John  Francis,  163,  166,  173. 
Brisbane,  Albert,  48. 
British  Museum,  Marx  and  the, 

169-170. 


251 


252 


INDEX 


Brook  Farm,  46. 

Buffalo  Express  strike,  156. 

"Bull  pens,"  159. 

C 

Cabet,  Etienne,  47,  50-52,  180. 

California,  cost  of  raising  wheat 
in,  108  n. 

Campanella,  7. 

Cannabalism,  67,  86-87. 

Capital:  dedication  of,  167; 
English  character  of,  172; 
Liebknecht  on,  168-169;  not 
the  cause,  but  the  explanation 
of  Socialism,  102;  quoted,  26- 
27,  77,  99,  183,  185. 

CAPITAL  :  nature  of,  183,  184 ;  So- 
cialists advocate  abolition  of, 
234-235. 

Capitalist  income,  the  source  of, 
203-210. 

Carlyle,  Thomas,  quoted,  175,  224. 

Cartwright,  English  inventor,  17- 
18. 

Cassalis,  African  missionary, 
quoted,  66. 

Centralization  and  the  Law :  Scien- 
tific Legal  Education,  128. 

Charles  Darwin  and  Karl  Marx, 
A  Comparison,  77. 

Chartism  and  Chartists,  46,  58, 
59,  203. 

Child  Labor  in  England,  19-25, 
37. 

Civil  War,  the,  73. 

Claims  of  Labour  and  Capital 
Conciliated,  The,  165. 

Clansman,  The,  129. 

Clarion,  The,  5  n. 

Class  consciousness,  142-143. 

CLASS  DIVISIONS  :  of  capitalism, 
97,  129-134;  of  feudalism,  127- 
129;  of  slavery,  127-134;  the 
United  States,  139-146,  152- 
158;  ultimate  end  of  all,  126, 
160. 

Class  environment,  influence  on 
beliefs,  etc.,  134-139. 


Class  struggle  theory,  the,   123- 

126. 

Clodd,  Edward,  quoted,  66,  70. 
Coeur  de  Alene,  146,  154. 
Colorado,  labor  troubles  in,  138, 

154. 
Columbus  and  the  discovery  of 

America,  78-80. 
Coming  Slavery,  The,  4,  213. 
Commercial    crisis    in    England, 

1815,  34-39. 
COMMODITY  :      definition     of     a, 

184-187;     money  as    a,    196- 

200 ;  labor-power  as  a,  200-202 ; 

sunshine    called   a,    186;   value 

of,  determined  by  labor,    187- 

196. 
COMMUNISM:  political,  11,  12,  47, 

52-54;    primitive,  81,  85-86. 
Communist  League,  the,  53. 
Communist        Manifesto,        the : 

Birth-cry  of  modern  Socialism, 

46 ;   joint  authorship  of  54,  61- 

62 ;   publication  of,  54 ;  quoted, 

11,  60,   125-126;  summary  of, 

by    Engels,    60-61 ;      taxation 

of   land   values   advocated   in, 

210. 
Competition,  82-85,  98,  99,  120- 

121. 

Comrade,  The,  8. 
Concentration     of     capital     and 

wealth,  the,  100-122. 
Condition  of  the  Working  Class  in 

England  in  1844,  The,  58,  62. 
Cooke-Taylor,  R.  W.,  21. 
COOPERATION  :     among    animals, 

82-84;    Robert  Owen  and,  41, 

47;    under  Socialism,  222,  227. 
Corn  Law  Rhymes,  the,  1. 
Cossa,  Luigi,  quoted,   174. 
Cotton  manufacture  in  England, 

18    et    seq. ;    Friedrich     Engels 

and,  57-58. 
Credit   functions   in   Socialist  r6- 

gime,  222,  223-224,  237. 
Cripple  Creek,  146. 
Crompton,  English  inventor,   17. 
Currency  and  Wealth,  102. 


INDEX 


253 


D 


Dale,  David,  22. 

Darwin,  Charles :  appreciation  of 
work  of,  by  Marx  and  his  asso- 
ciates, 77;  compared  to  Marx, 
77;  letter  from,  to  Marx,  77; 
quoted,  82. 

Davenay,  letter  from  Herbert 
Spencer  to,  4. 

Dawson,  W.  H.,  55  n. 

Debs,  Eugene  V.,  155. 

DEMOCRACY  :  application  of  prin- 
ciples of,  to  industry  under 
Socialism,  224-227 ;  essential  to 
Socialism,  215;  only  approxi- 
mately attainable,  215-216; 
Socialists'  advocacy  of,  216. 

Descent  of  Man,  The,  82. 

Deville,  Gabriel,  quoted,  184. 

Diary  of  Mrs.  Marx,  quoted,  170- 
171. 

Die  Voraussetzungen  des  Social- 
izmus,  114. 

Direct  legislation,  216. 

Directory  of  Directors,  the,  100. 

Disclosures  About  the  Commu- 
nists' Process,  54  n. 

Drinkwater,  partner  of  Robert 
Owen,  28-29. 


E 


Eastern  Question,  The,  169  n. 

Economics  of  Socialism,  36,  81  n., 
198  n. 

Effects  of  Civilisation  on  the  People 
of  the  European  States,  163. 

Elements  of  Political  Economy 
(Nicholson),  186  n. 

Elliott,  Ebenezer,  quoted,  1. 

Ely,  Professor  R.  T.,  quoted,  68, 
99,  113,  116,  119. 

EXCELS,  FRIEDRICH  :  birth  and 
early  training,  57;  collabo- 
rates with  Marx  in  authorship 
of  Communist  Manifesto,  54 ; 
first  meeting  with  Marx,  55,  57, 
58;  friendship  with  O'Connor 


and  Owen,  58 ;  his  Condition  of 
the  Working  Class  in  England, 
58 ;  joins  International  Alliance 
with  Marx,  53 ;  life  in  England, 
57-58;  linguistic  abilities,  58; 
journalistic  work,  58 ;  poem  on, 
63;  quoted,  14,  15,  42,  43,  47, 
60,  62,  75-76,  77,  89,  125,  148; 
share  in  authorship  of  Mani- 
festo, 61-62. 

Essai  sur  la  repartition  des  ri- 
chesses  et  sur  la  tendance  a  une 
moindre  intgalitt  des  condi- 
tions, 116. 

Essays  on  the  Formation  of  Hu- 
man Character,  52. 

Everet's  wool-dressing  machine, 
25. 


Factory  System  and  the  Factory 
Acts,  The,  21  n. 

Farmers,  conflicting  class  in- 
terests of,  132-133. 

Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  79. 

Ferri,  Enrico,  65  n.,  67. 

FEUDALISM  :  duration  of,  91 ; 
nature  of,  92-94 ;  origin  of,  90, 
91 ;  theory  of,  92. 

Feuerbach,  Ludwig,  74. 

Feuerbach,  the  Roots  of  the  Social- 
ist Philosophy,  74  n. 

Figaro,  the,  4. 

"Final  Utility"  theory  of  value, 
198. 

Fourier,  Charles,  41,  44,  48,  180. 

Foxwell,  Professor,  166  n. ; 
quoted,  165. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  estimate  of, 
by  Marx,  190 ;  quoted,  189-190. 

Freeman,  Justice,  156. 

Freiligrath,  F.,  167. 

French  and  German  Socialism,  42. 


G 


Garrison,  W.  Lloyd,  73. 
Garwood,  John,  poem  by,  quoted, 
33. 


254 


INDEX 


Gentz,  M.,  44-45. 

George,  Henry,  210. 

German  Socialism  and  Ferdinand 

Lassalle,  55  n. 
GERMANY  :   Anarchism   weak    in, 

144;    ribbon  loom,  invented  in, 

26 ;  use  of  loom  in  forbidden, 

26. 
Ghent,    W.    J.,    31,    71,    134  n. ; 

quoted,  138,  139,  140. 
Gibbins,  H.  de  B.,  quoted,  19-20, 

24,  25. 
Giddings,  Professor  Franklin  H., 

quoted,  231. 
Giffen,  Sir  Robert,  118. 
Gildersleeve,  Justice,  157. 
Glasgow,    conference    of    cotton 

manufacturers  in,  36-39. 
Godwin,  William,  163,  164. 
Gompers,    Samuel,    quoted,    11  n. 
Gossen,  198  n. 
Gray,  John,  163,  165. 
Green,  John  Richard,  68. 
Growth   of  Monopoly   in   English 

Industry,  The,  105. 
Guaranties  of  Harmony  and  Free- 
dom, The,  48. 
Guide   to   the   Study   of   Political 

Economy,  174  n. 

H 

Hall,  Charles,  163. 
Hanna,  Marcus  A.,  145. 
Hargreaves,      English      inventor, 

17. 

Hazelton  and  Homestead,  146. 
Heath,  Frederic,  48  n. 
Heine,  Heinrich,  57. 
Herr  Vogt,  54  n. 
Hillquit,  Morris,  quoted,  48-50. 
History     and     Criticism     of     the 

Labour  Theory  of  Value,  165  n. 
History  of  Socialism,  55  n. 
History  of  Socialism  in  the  United 

States,  42,  48. 

History  of  the  Factory  System,  21. 
Hodgskin,  Thomas,  163,  166,  173. 
Huxley,  Professor,  66,  82. 


Hyndman,    H.    M.,    36  n.,    81  n., 
198  n. 


Ibsen,  13. 

Icaria,  51-52. 

Idaho,  154. 

Industrial  History  of  England,  19, 

20,  24. 

Injunctions,  155-157. 
International  Cigarmakers '  Union, 

156. 
International  Socialist  Review,  The, 

8n. 
International    Typographical 

Union,  156. 


Jevons,  W.  S.,  199  n. 

Jones,  Lloyd,  biographer  of  Owen, 

16. 
Jones,  Owen's  first  partner,  28. 


Karl  Marx:  Biographical  Me- 
moirs, 55,  169,  171. 

Kautsky,  Karl,  57  n,,  107,  235  ; 
quoted,  108. 

Kipling,  Rudyard,  quoted,  80. 

Kirkup,  Thomas,  55  n. 

Kropotkin,  Peter,  82,  83,  84. 


Labor-power,  a  commodity,  200- 
202;  determines  value,  187- 
196. 

Labour  Defended  against  the 
Claims  of  Capital,  166. 

Labour's  Wrongs  and  Labour's 
Remedy,  166. 

Lamarck,  61. 

La  Misere  de  la  Philosophie,  161, 
163. 

Land,  ownership  of,  under  Social- 
ism, 221 ;  under  tribal  com- 
munism, 125. 

La  Philosophie  de  la  Misere,  161. 


INDEX 


255 


Lassalle,  Ferdinand,  55  n.,  164  n., 

201. 

Lauderdale,  Lord,  45,  198. 
Lectures  on  the  Nature  and  Use  of 

Money,  166. 
Lee,  Algernon,  quoted,  136,  203- 

205,  209. 

Leibnitz,  quoted,  65-66. 
Leslie,  John  ("J.  L."),  63. 
Liebknecht,  W.,  55,  57;    quoted, 

77,  168-169,  170-171. 
Life  of  Francis  Place,  The,  166  n. 
Lloyd,  W.  F.,  198  n. 
Lockwood,  George  B.,  37,  39,  40. 
London,  Jack,  144  n. 
Love  joy,  73. 
Lubbock,  Sir  John,  85. 
Luddites,  the,  25. 
Luther,  Martin,  68. 
Lyell,  66. 


Machinery,  introduction  of,  17- 
18,  25-27. 

Machinists'  Union  sued,  158. 

Macrosty,  H.  W.,  105. 

Maine,  Sir  Henry,  85. 

Malthus,  82. 

Marx,  Eleanor,  55  n. 

MARX,  KARL.  :  Birth  and  early  life, 
55—56 ;  Capital  written  in  Lon- 
don, 168-169 ;  collaborates  with 
Engels  in  authorship  of  Com- 
munist Manifesto,  54;  conver- 
sion to  Socialism,  58;  corre- 
spondent for  New  York  Tribune 
169;  death,  55,  172;  domestic 
felicity,  171-172 ;  edits  Rhenish 
Gazette,  56;  expelled  from  dif- 
ferent European  countries,  167- 
168;  finds  refuge  in  England, 
168 ;  first  meeting  with  Engels, 
55,  57,  58 ;  his  attack  on  Prou- 
dhon,  161-162 ;  his  obligations 
to  the  Ricardian  Socialists,  163- 
164;  his  surplus-value  theory, 
163,  164,  202,  203-206 ;  in  Ger- 
man revolution  of  1848,  167; 


Jewish  ancestry,  55-56;  mar- 
riage, 57;  mastery  of  art  of 
definition,  176;  poverty,  169- 
171;  quoted,  26-27,  74,  99, 
153,  176,  183,  184-185,  190  n. ; 
related  to  Argyles  by  mar- 
riage, 57;  scientific  methods 
of,  179-181 ;  starts  New  Rhen- 
ish Gazette,  167-168. 

Mass  and  Class,  71,  134  n.,  139, 
142. 

Mayo-Smith,  Richmond,  117-118. 

McMaster,  68. 

Mehring,  Franz,  55  n. 

Menger,  Dr.  Anton,  163,  165  n., 
166  n.,  199  n. 

Message  to  Congress,  141. 

Middle  Ages,  the,  91,  97. 

Mill,  John  Stuart,  175. 

Mitchell,  John,  quoted,  145-146. 
155. 

Moffett,  Cleveland,  119  n. 

Money  as  a  commodity,  196—198. 

More,  Sir  Thomas,  7,  51. 

Morgan,  J.  P.,  142. 

Morgan,  Lewis  H.,  85,  86  n. 

Morris,  William,  quoted,  5,  18. 

Mutual  Aid  a  Factor  of  Evolution, 
83,84. 

N 

National  Association  of  Manu- 
facturers, the,  145. 

National  Civic  Federation,  the, 
145. 

Natural  and  Artificial  Right  of 
Property  Contrasted,  The,  166. 

"New  Christianity"  of  Saint-Si- 
mon, 58—59. 

New  Harmony,  40-41,  46. 

New  Harmony  Communities,  The, 
37,  39,  40. 

New  Lanark,  30-34. 

New  Moral  World,  The,  9, 58. 

Newton,  124. 

New  York  Sun,  the,  156. 

Nicholson,  Professor  J.  S.,  186  n. 

Northern  Star,  The,  58. 


256 


INDEX 


O 

Oceana,  71. 

Organized  Labor,  146,  155. 

Origin  of  Species,  The,  61. 

Origin  of  the  Family,  Private 
Property,  and  the  State,  The,  86, 
89. 

Our  Benevolent  Feudalism,  105. 

OWEN,  ROBERT  :  as  cotton  manu- 
facturer, 27  et  seq. ;  at  Aix-la- 
Chapelle,  44 ;  Autobiography  of, 
22,  31,  45 ;  becomes  Socialist, 
39 ;  begins  agitation  for  Fac- 
tory Acts,  29 ;  biography  of,  16 ; 
dying  words,  45 ;  established 
infant  schools,  30,  41 ;  Engels' 
estimate  of,  14—15 ;  first  to  use 
word  "  Socialism, "  9 ;  founder  of 
cooperative  movement,  41 ;  his 
"failure,"  41;  improves  spin- 
ning machinery,  28  n. ;  Lieb- 
knecht  on,  14;  New  Lanark, 
30-32 ;  on  crisis  of  1815,  34-39  ; 
presides  over  first  Trade  Union 
Congress,  41  n. ;  proposes  es- 
tablishment of  communistic 
villages,  39;  quoted,  22,  23, 
31,  32-33,  33-34,  35-36,  37-39, 
45;  skepticism  of,  16;  speech 
to  cotton  manufacturers,  37. 

Owenism  synonymous  with  So- 
cialism, 9. 


Peel,  Sir  Robert,  29. 

Petty,  Sir  William,  173,  174,  175 ; 

quoted,  188-189. 
Pioneers  of  Evolution  from  Tholes 

to  Huxley,  66. 
Place,  Francis,  166. 
Plato,  9. 

Political  Economy   (Senior),   173. 
Poverty  of  Philosophy,   The,   161, 

163. 
Present  Distribution  of  Wealth  in 

the  United  States,  The,  119. 
Price  an  approximation  of  value, 

196-200. 


Principles   of   Political    Economy 

and  Taxation,  191. 
Private   property,   origin   of,    86; 

under  the  Socialist  regime,  220, 

236. 
Proudhon,  P.  J.,  57,  161,  162,  166. 

Q 
Quelch,  H.,  161  n. 


R 


Reformateurs  Modernes,  9. 
Remarks  and  Facts  relative  to  the 

American  Paper  Money,  190. 
Republic,  the,  of  Plato,  9. 
Revolution    and     Counter-Revolu- 

tion,  169. 
Revolution  in  Mind  and  Practice, 

The,  45  n. 
Reybaud,  L.,  8,  9. 
Ricardians,    the,    162,    163,    165, 

167,  193. 
Ricardo,    David,    165,    173,    175, 

193;    quoted,  190,  191. 
Right    to    the    Whole    Produce    of 

Labour,  The,  163,  165. 
Rockefeller,  John  D.,  120,  142. 
Rogers,  Thorold,  72,  78  n.,  79  n., 

189  n.,  192  n. 
Roosevelt,  President,  quoted,  141. 


Sadler,  Michael,  23. 
Sainl^Simon,  5,   7,  9,  41,  43,  44, 

180,  181. 
Salt,  H.  S.,  24  n. 
Schiller,  quoted,  73. 
Seligman,  Professor  E.  R.  S.,  69, 

70,  72,  74,  75. 

Senior,  Nassau,  quoted,  173. 
Shall  the  Unions  go  into  Politics  f 

46  n. 

Simons,  A.  M.,  quoted,  110,  111. 
Smith,  Adam,  165,  173,  174,  175, 

191,   192;    quoted,   189,   196. 
Social  Democracy  Red  Book,  48  n. 


INDEX 


257 


SOCIALISM  :  Anarchism,  and,  1, 
144;  cooperation  under,  222, 
227 ;  credit  functions  under, 
222,  237 ;  democracy  essential 
to,  215—217;  education  under, 
238 ;  first  use  of  the  word,  8-9 ; 
freedom  in  religious,  scientific, 
and  philosophical  matters  un- 
der, 217;  freedom  of  the  in- 
dividual under,  213,  217;  in 
Germany,  144 ;  in  United  States, 
3, 152 ;  inheritance  of  wealth  un- 
der, 236-237;  justice  under, 
237;  labor  and  its  reward  un- 
der, 227-237 ;  monopolies  and, 
99,  100,  221,  223,  227;  private 
property  and  industry  under, 
220-221 ;  relation  of  sexes  un- 
der, 218—219 ;  religious  train- 
ing of  children  and,  238 ;  scien- 
tific character  of,  179-181 ; 
Utopian  and  scientific,  com- 
pared, 42-43 ;  wages  under, 
234-236;  wealth  under,  236- 
237. 

Socialism  and  Modem  Science,  65, 
67. 

Socialism  and  Social  Democracy, 
8n. 

Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scien- 
tific, 15,  34,  43,  44,  71. 

Social  Revolution,  The,  108. 

Sombart,  Professor  Werner,  109. 

Songs  of  Freedom,  24  n. 

Spahr,  Charles  B.,  119. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  6,  66,  213; 
quoted,  4,  5. 

Statistics  and  Economics,  117,  118. 

Studies  in  the  Evolution  of  In- 
dustrial Society,  99,  113,  115, 
119. 

Surplus-value  theory,  the,  163, 
165,  202-210. 

Symonds,  J.  Addington,  239  n. 


"Taff  Vale  law"  157-158,  159. 
The    Economic    Interpretation    of 

History  (Rogers),  78,  79. 
The    Economic    Interpretation    of 

History  (Seligman),  69,  70,  72, 

73,  75. 

The  People's  Marx,  184. 
The  Social  System,  a  Treatise  on 

the  Principles  of  Exchange,  166. 
Thompson,  William,  163, 164, 173. 
Tolstoy,  13. 

U 

United  Mine  Workers,  the,  130. 

UNITED  STATES  :  classes  in,  139- 
146 ;  concentration  of  wealth  in, 
119-120;  farms  and  farm 
mortgages  in,  110;  million- 
aires in,  120;  Socialism  in,  3, 
152;  strikes  in,  144. 

United  States  Steel  Corporation, 
113. 

W 

Wallace,  A.  R.,  66,  70. 
War  of  the  Classes,  144  n. 
Warne,  Frank  Julian,  130  n. 
Wealth  of  Nations,  the,  172,  173, 

189,  192. 

Webb,  Mrs.  Sidney,  23. 
Weitling,  Wilhelm,  47,  48,  50,  52. 
Whitaker,  Dr.  A.  C.,  165  n. 
Wolf,  Wilhelm,  167. 
Worker,  The,  136,  203,  209. 
World  as  it  Is,  and  as  it  Might 

Be,  The,  47. 


Z 


Zola,  Emile,  13. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  £ 

A     000  676  673     7 


